propose_allocation

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

The description goes beyond annotations by specifying that the tool never trades, never gives recommendations or return forecasts, and that weights are deterministic. It also notes a cache dependency for the verdict, providing actionable behavioral context. No contradiction with readOnlyHint=true.

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 relatively compact, packing multiple pieces of information into a single paragraph. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then adds usage guidance and behavioral notes. Minor redundancy exists (e.g., restating 'propose-only'), but overall 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?

Given the tool's complexity (two parameters, validation logic, cache-dependency), the description covers the essential behaviors: what it does, what it returns, and key caveats. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return structure in detail, making this sufficiently 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description effectively explains both parameters: preset maps to risk posture categories (conservative/moderate/aggressive) and benchmark maps to canonical references (60-40/all-weather/permanent/none). It adds the use of benchmark='none' to skip validation, which is not evident from the enum alone.

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 specifies a precise action: propose a strategic target allocation for a given risk posture, validated against a reference benchmark, with a drawdown verdict. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing its 'propose-only' nature and deterministic core, avoiding confusion with recommendation or trading 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 explicitly tells when to use the tool ('Use to answer...') and provides a conditional instruction ('Pass benchmark='none' to skip validation'). It gives clear context for invocation, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use this one.

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