Pre-Trade Rebalance Risk Gate

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, destructive=false and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral substance beyond that: the four named gates, the sell-before-buy sequencing intent, and the explicit statement that it never routes trades. It does not, however, say what happens on a breach (halt vs. partial plan vs. rejection), which is the key operational behavior an agent needs.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler, and the enumeration of checked guards is front-loaded. The jargon load is high but each clause carries information.

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 an 11-parameter, nested-object planning tool with an output schema (so return format needn't be explained), the description gives enough to know the decision logic involved. The gap is the post-evaluation contract — what a breach produces and how the ordered sell/buy steps are surfaced — which the output schema may cover.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 11 parameters and the baseline is 3. The description gestures at several parameters — the 3% turnover buffer (drift_threshold), marketable limit collars (limit_collar_bps), the bid-ask spread gate (max_spread_bps), the drawdown breaker (max_drawdown_limit) — but without syntax, units, or interaction detail beyond what the schema states.

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?

Specific verb ('Checks') plus a precisely enumerated resource: the drawdown circuit breaker, feature drift guard, turnover drift buffer, and spread gate. The closing clause 'never routes trades' clearly separates it from an execution tool. It stops short of naming which sibling (e.g., validate_order) to prefer, so it is clear but not sibling-differentiating.

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 title 'Pre-Trade Rebalance Risk Gate' and the gate-checking framing imply this belongs before order submission, but the description never states when to call it versus warden.validate_order or warden.cost_check. Usage must be inferred from the tool's name and position in a pipeline.

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