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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as false, covering the safety profile. The description adds behavioral context beyond the annotations: it uses 1d APY rather than 7d, explains that APY values are decimal fractions, and notes that weekly_earning_difference is in USD. This helps the agent interpret outputs and understand why results may differ from the list ranking.

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 three sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by a useful differentiation from a sibling tool, then essential unit clarifications. Every sentence contributes actionable information.

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 rich output schema, complete parameter schema, and annotations that cover mutability. The description adds the critical non-obvious facts about APY basis and unit conventions, so an agent has everything needed to select and invoke the tool correctly without confusion.

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 for parameters is 100%: both chain_id and account_address have descriptions in the input schema. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does helpfully contextualize units and APY basis, but those are not parameter semantics.

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 specific verb and resource: "Get a rebalancing recommendation for an Arcadia account" and clarifies what it does — suggests asset changes to optimize yield. It also distinguishes itself from read_strategy_list by explicitly calling out the 1d vs 7d APY difference, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 provides clear context for when this tool is relevant by contrasting its 1d APY basis with read_strategy_list's 7d APY. It implies that this tool should be used when a 1d-yield-based rebalancing recommendation is desired rather than the list ranking. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, but the differentiation is strong enough for an agent to route correctly.

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