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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only, destructive operation, but the description adds substantive behavioral context: there is no external vault/LP deposit, the swap pipeline is non-custodial, and it only rotates spot holdings toward target weights. This meaningfully clarifies what the tool actually does and does not do beyond the annotation flags.

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 efficiently structured with the core purpose front-loaded, followed by the most important behavioral distinction and a pointer to sibling docs. The phrase 'hard rule 1' is an unexplained internal reference that costs a point, since an external agent may not know what rule 1 is.

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?

Given the tool has 9 parameters and output schema, the description covers the central semantics and routes the agent to strategy_dca_create for reusable direction config. It is mostly complete for selection and invocation, though the unexplained 'hard rule 1' and underspecified parameters like risk prevent a perfect score.

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 carry the parameter-semantics burden. It does explain target_allocation as mint->weight, drift_threshold_pct, and the direction-related parameters (direction_mode, allow_short, regime_override), but it leaves risk, slippage_bps, wallet_address, and interval_seconds without semantic guidance. This partial compensation warrants a mid-range score.

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 opens with a clear verb and resource: 'Create a vault strategy', then defines it as a 'target-allocation basket held via rebalancing'. It differentiates itself from strategy_rebalance_create by framing this as a passive basket rather than an active rebalance loop, so an agent can distinguish the tool from its closest sibling.

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 description names the closely related strategy_rebalance_create and explicitly states that this tool shares the same executor but is a passive-basket framing. It also points to strategy_dca_create for the directional parameters, giving an agent a clear path to related alternatives. It stops short of an explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use list, so it loses one point.

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