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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds significant extra context: the paid nature ($0.50–$1.00 per call) and the existence of free alternatives. This goes beyond structured fields, though it does not reveal other behavioral details like response format or latency.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by specific sub-uses and pricing caveat. No fluff; every clause adds value.

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?

The tool has a small parameter surface (2 params, no output schema). The description covers the tool's scope, cost, and relationship to alternatives. A minor gap is not explaining what the 'context' parameter should contain, but the default kind and open-ended context are adequately implied for an advisory tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description enriches the enum values by paraphrasing each kind ('portfolio risk allocation', 'how to split capital', 'strategy gate', 'meta-strategy read'), adding meaning beyond the bare schema listing. The context parameter remains vague, but the description compensates sufficiently.

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 clearly states the tool provides 'risk-aware allocation guidance' and enumerates specific use cases: portfolio risk allocation, capital splitting across strategies, strategy gate checks, and meta-strategy read. This distinguishes it from sibling analysis tools by focusing on allocation advice rather than raw data.

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?

Description gives concrete scenarios where the tool applies (gate check, meta-strategy, etc.) and explicitly notes that 'free alternatives exist for several of these' while directing to list_einstein_capabilities. This is clearer than most, but it does not provide case-by-case when-not guidance for each alternative.

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