Build a policy-bounded treasury plan

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=false) indicate this is a write operation, and the description confirms 'create' implying mutation. The description adds a safety note: 'Caller-provided addresses never become trusted execution targets.' However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits like side effects on the system, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The description neither contradicts nor significantly extends beyond what annotations already imply.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the core process in the first sentence. The second sentence adds a security constraint without extraneous detail. It is concise but could be slightly tighter by removing the phrase 'server-produced' as it is implied.

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?

Given the complexity of the tool (4 parameters with deep nesting, output schema exists), the description provides a high-level process but lacks important context such as the role of the 'policy' parameter, prerequisites (e.g., that the snapshot must be server-produced), and what happens on validation failure. The output schema is present so return values are not needed, but the description still feels incomplete for an agent to fully understand the tool's operation.

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%, meaning no parameter descriptions exist in the schema. The tool description fails to compensate by explaining the meaning or usage of any parameters. For example, 'policy' is not mentioned at all, and 'snapshot' and 'opportunities' are only referenced generically. This leaves agents with insufficient understanding of how to construct valid inputs.

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 action: 'Validate a server-produced wallet snapshot and opportunity set, apply deterministic hard gates before ranking, include the liquid baseline, and create a short-lived typed plan.' It specifies the resource (snapshot and opportunities) and the outcome (typed plan). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'plan_simulate' or 'execution_prepare' which handle simulation or execution, not plan creation.

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 implies usage context ('create a short-lived typed plan' after validation) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives like 'plan_simulate' or 'execution_prepare'. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions are provided.

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