aureon_get_allocation_vs_target

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content (per-objective current weight vs target, plus a flag), which is useful given there is no output schema, but it says nothing about authorization requirements, scoping, or what the 'green-book/off-plan paradox flag' actually signals.

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?

A single compact sentence, front-loading the core comparison before the secondary flag. Efficient, though the unexplained domain jargon ('green-book/off-plan paradox') costs a little clarity.

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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately sketches the return shape (per-objective weight vs target plus a flag). It would be stronger if it decoded the paradox flag, but nothing essential to invoking the tool is missing.

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, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4. No parameter confusion is possible here.

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?

Names a specific resource (per-objective allocation vs policy target) and the comparison it performs, which reads clearly as distinct from the raw holdings returned by aureon_get_portfolio. However, it never names an alternative tool, so differentiation from siblings like aureon_check_policy or aureon_get_overview must be inferred.

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 states what the tool returns but gives no guidance on when to call it versus aureon_get_portfolio, aureon_check_policy, or aureon_get_objective_portfolio_flow. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no context for selecting it.

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