prepare_dual_invest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool is step 1 of 2, returns a confirmation token (implying it does not complete the subscription), and requires a live 'profit' value. This transparently sets expectations about the staged nature and output, though it could mention side effects or idempotency.

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 three concise sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the most important information ('STEP 1 of 2') and includes only actionable guidance (exactly one amount, profit source, return token).

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 6-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical aspects: the step sequence, the key parameter constraints, and the return value. It could be more explicit about the base and product_id parameters, but the overall context is sufficient for an agent to call the tool 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds crucial meaning for the profit parameter ('must be the live value from get_dual_prices') and the mutual exclusivity of base_amount and currency_amount ('Provide EXACTLY ONE'). It does not explain base, product_id, or client_dual_id, but these are either self-evident or optional, so the key ambiguities are addressed.

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 role as 'STEP 1 of 2 to subscribe to a dual-investment product,' specifying both the action (prepare) and the resource (dual-investment subscription). It also differentiates from siblings by mentioning the two-step process and the confirmation token, making it distinct from other prepare_* tools.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool (to initiate a dual-investment subscription) and gives a specific instruction to use the live value from get_dual_prices for the profit parameter. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools (e.g., confirm_action), though the two-step framing implies the next step.

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