suggest_buys

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

The description discloses its internal behavior: it composes drift and screening, surfaces non-screenable classes in skipped_classes with a reason, and requires outbound_enabled. It also includes a disclaimer that output is educational, not investment advice. This provides good transparency.

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 reasonably concise and well-structured. It starts with the main purpose, then elaborates on the process and output, and ends with a requirement and disclaimer. It is slightly redundant but generally efficient.

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?

The description provides a good overview of the tool's inputs, process, and output, including the skipped_classes behavior and the outbound_enabled requirement. However, it omits any explanation of the two parameters, which are the only inputs an agent would pass. This gap affects completeness.

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?

The schema provides no descriptions for top_n and target_path (0% coverage), and the description does not mention or explain these parameters. Since the description fails to compensate for the missing schema information, it provides no semantic guidance for the parameters.

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 purpose: suggest BUY actions for underweight asset classes based on the advisor profile. It uses a specific verb ('Suggest'), identifies the resource (underweight asset classes) and provides context on the process (drift + screening). It also distinguishes non-screenable classes, giving a clear scope.

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 mentions a prerequisite (outbound_enabled=true) and outlines that it composes drift and screening, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The guidance is implied rather than explicit, leaving some ambiguity.

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