Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation and non-idempotent nature are already known. The description adds a small behavioral detail by calling the direction inputs a 'deterministic signal,' but it does not disclose side effects, overwrite behavior, or any additional consequences beyond what annotations already imply.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence and optional direction details in the second. It earns its place without fluff, though the 'see strategy_dca_create' reference shifts some explanatory burden to another tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With 9 parameters, nested objects, and an output schema, the description is too sparse to be complete. It does not explain required wallet_address, the format and constraints of target_allocation beyond 'mint->weight', or the meaning of drift_threshold_pct, interval_seconds, slippage_bps, and risk. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the input semantics are not.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains target_allocation as 'mint->weight' and mentions direction_mode, allow_short, and regime_override as direction controls, but it leaves risk, slippage_bps, interval_seconds, drift_threshold_pct, and wallet_address unexplained. The cross-reference to strategy_dca_create may help but is not self-contained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear verb and resource: 'Create a portfolio-rebalance strategy toward target_allocation (mint->weight).' This distinguishes it from most strategy_*_create siblings by specifying the rebalance behavior. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from strategy_dca_create beyond a cross-reference for direction semantics.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The intended use is implied by the first sentence: use this to create a portfolio-rebalance strategy targeting a specific allocation. The reference to strategy_dca_create for direction semantics hints at shared behavior but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to other strategy creation tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.