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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return shape, but since a full output schema exists this is largely redundant rather than new behavioral insight (no mention of percentage-sum constraints or what happens if percentages don't sum to 100).

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 short sentences, purpose front-loaded with the cross-reference trailing. Slightly diminished by the 'Returns' clause, which duplicates the output schema, but overall tight and well-ordered.

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?

For a simple calculator with 100% schema coverage and an output schema, the description supplies the essential scope plus a bundle pointer. It omits any note about whether allocation percentages must sum to 100, which is the one genuinely useful constraint an agent might need, keeping it short of a 5.

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 100% and every parameter (btc_pct, eth_pct, alts_pct, stablecoins_pct, total_value) is documented with defaults and ranges in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond this, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Calculate') and resource ('portfolio allocation amounts by percentage for major crypto asset classes'), which is immediately distinguishable from the many sibling calculators like calculate_crypto_profit_loss or calculate_mining_profitability. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling it is not, but the crypto-allocation scope is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied by the scope statement. The cross-reference 'See list_bundles for related crypto calculators' offers some routing context, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tool named for portfolio allocation modeling specifically.

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