asset_allocation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden; it discloses that every call recomputes from latest market/macro data and that results are 'daily fresh', implying results can change between calls. Output details are not described, but an output schema exists and this appears to be a side-effect-free computation.

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 compact sentences front-load the core purpose via a colon and then add the key real-time behavior. The nested methodology list is dense but each element is informative, so the description remains 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?

For a parameterless tool with an output schema, the description provides essential context: target market (China), asset classes, the four-layer framework, and real-time freshness. It does not explicitly delimit when to prefer sibling tools, but that is a minor gap given the clear niche.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema carries no parameter semantics to clarify. The 0-parameter baseline is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on the computation methodology instead.

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 states a specific verb ('动态计算') and resource ('中国周期调整资产配置...股票/债券/商品/现金配比'), so the tool's function is clear. It does not explicitly name or contrast the sibling fund_asset_allocation tool, relying instead on '中国市场' and asset-class wording for differentiation.

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 tool's usage is implied: call it to get a fresh, real-time China market cycle-adjusted allocation. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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