Verify allocation stress scenarios

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

The description reinforces and expands on the readOnly/idempotent annotations by stating that the tool never executes a financial action, which is a useful safety clarification. It also specifies the two types of checks performed (liquidity and rate-drop), adding behavioral context beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 short, focused sentences with no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the safety guarantee is clearly stated in the second. Every word contributes meaning.

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 high complexity of the nested input schema, the absence of an output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description is too sparse to fully equip an agent. It covers the tool's high-level purpose and that it is read-only, but leaves critical questions unanswered about what inputs mean, what constitutes success or failure, and what the tool returns.

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%: none of the four complex parameters (goal, balance, allocations, products) are described in the schema or the tool description. The description gives no guidance on what values to supply, what they mean, or how they relate to the stress checks. An agent would have to infer the semantics purely from the property names and nested structure.

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 names a specific verb ('Re-run'), a clear resource ('mandatory liquidity and rate-drop stress checks for a proposed plan'), and explicitly states that the tool never executes a financial action. It conveys the tool's role among planning-related siblings, though it does not explicitly name an alternative tool for contrast.

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 phrase 'for a proposed plan' and 'Re-run' imply the tool should be used after a plan has been created, when verification or re-verification is needed. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this tool over lucho_tighten_plan, lucho_plan_treasury, or lucho_create_receipt.

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