crypto_rebalance-threshold

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the return values (rebalancing needed, drift per asset, trade list), which exceeds annotation coverage and helps the agent understand output.

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, front-loaded with purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence earns its place, making it concise and well-structured.

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 tool's simplicity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and return values adequately. It is complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3. Description adds value by explaining the output structure and connecting parameters (target weights, current weights) to the function, enabling the agent to anticipate results beyond the schema.

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 performs 'drift detection and trade computation' for portfolio rebalancing, distinguishing it from siblings like portfolio_rebalance-plan which likely generates a full rebalance plan. The verb+noun combination is specific and informative.

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 explicitly says 'Use when checking if a crypto portfolio needs rebalancing,' providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use or explicitly compare to alternatives, but the usage scenario is well-defined.

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