pillar_direct_dca_partners

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read-only 'View' operation and lists the returned data, but it omits any mention of authentication requirements, side effects, or whether the data is scoped to the connected user.

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 core description is two efficient sentences that front-load the purpose. The appended tip about earning_opportunities is tangential and does not help an agent select or invoke this specific tool, slightly reducing conciseness.

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?

For a parameterless read-only view tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description sufficiently explains the returned content (active partnerships, streak, PnL, weekly badges, pending invites). It could clarify scope (e.g., connected wallet) but is largely complete.

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 tool takes zero parameters; the schema is empty and fully described. Per the rubric, zero parameters yield a baseline of 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning.

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 uses a clear verb 'View' and specifies the resource 'DCA partners and weekly status', listing the data shown (streak, PnL, weekly status badges, pending invites). It does not explicitly differentiate from similarly named siblings like pillar_dca_partners or pillar_direct_dca_status, leaving ambiguity about which partner/status view to use.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; the only cross-reference is a tip to call earning_opportunities, which serves a different purpose. The implied usage is 'use this to view your DCA partners' but no exclusions or conditions are stated.

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