check_allocation_bands

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions evaluation and default band but does not disclose side effects (e.g., read-only), error handling, or prerequisites. Adequate but incomplete.

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 concise sentences: first states purpose, second details parameters. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key action.

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?

Has output schema, so describing returns is unnecessary. But the description lacks details about the allocation_pct parameter (asset mapping) and does not set expectations for result interpretation. Passable but not thorough.

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 0%, so description must add meaning. It clarifies that scenarios is an array of objects with required target_pct and optional name/band. However, allocation_pct structure (a map of asset to percentage) is not explained, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

Description clearly states the tool evaluates allocation drift across multiple scenarios, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from the singular 'check_allocation_band' sibling by emphasizing batch evaluation.

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 explains that each scenario requires target_pct and optionally name/band, with a default. It implies use for multiple scenarios but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_rebalance_plan or check_allocation_band.

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