Check whether a rebalance should be proposed

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

Description adds context beyond annotations: 'never moves funds automatically' clarifies readOnlyHint. It explains the tool can recommend proposals but does not execute trades. This is valuable behavioral insight not fully covered by annotations.

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, no fluff. First sentence states the core action; second adds a critical safety guarantee. Information is front-loaded and each sentence 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?

Description covers core purpose and safety, but lacks prerequisite context (e.g., need a planHash from strategy_createPlan or opportunities from opportunities_scan). Output schema exists, so return format is not required. Adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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%. The description implicitly maps planHash to stored decision and currentOpportunities to fresh scan, but provides no details on formats, constraints, or how to obtain these inputs. Parameter names are somewhat descriptive but insufficient for correct invocation.

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's function: compare a stored decision with a fresh opportunity scan, and optionally recommend a proposal. The verb 'compare' and resource 'stored executed/planned decision' are specific. It distinguishes from siblings like opportunities_scan or plan_simulate.

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: use after a stored plan and fresh scan. It states what the tool does not do ('never moves funds'), which guides safe usage. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or list alternative tools.

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