rebalance_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds that the tool is offline, never trades, and that new target tickers cannot be sized (appear under 'unpriced'), providing behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 a single, dense paragraph that conveys all necessary information without redundancy. It could be slightly better structured (e.g., bullet points), but every sentence earns its place.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown), the description need not detail return values. It covers modes, cash behavior, offline limitations, and unpriced tickers, providing sufficient context for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 schema description coverage at 0%, the description fully explains the 'mode' enum values and the role of 'new_cash', including requirements (e.g., requires > 0 for certain modes) and default behavior (all HOLD if 0). This adds essential meaning beyond the schema's basic types.

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 produces buy/sell/hold suggestions to move holdings toward target allocation, distinguishes itself by listing four specific modes and noting it is read-only and offline.

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 explains each mode and when they are appropriate (e.g., 'bands' only activates on threshold breach; 'fixed_dca' and 'cash_flow_only' require new_cash > 0). It does not directly contrast with sibling tools, but the context of rebalancing vs. other portfolio tools is implied.

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