plan_treasury

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds substantive behavior: fees are read live from the vault, the simulation includes estimated exit value and round-trip cost, and it lists the concrete blockers (crash shield, redemption cooldown, ETH for exit). The final sentence explicitly recharacterizes GBLIN as crypto exposure, not cash or yield — useful risk context not present in structured fields.

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 core outcome is front-loaded and the dense parentheticals pack in the formula, simulation contents, and blockers without filler. It is heavy for a single paragraph and some clauses (e.g., the full blocker enumeration) could be trimmed, but nearly every sentence 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, yet the description still summarizes the plan contents and adds the risk caveat and blocker list, giving an agent enough to call and interpret the tool confidently. Coverage is strong; only the absence of explicit alternative-routing keeps it from a 5.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning by giving the operating-cash formula (max(reserve_usd, daily_burn_usd × days)), noting the trial default (100 USDC), and stating which rule wins when they conflict. That is beyond what the schema alone conveys.

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 concrete transformation ('Idle USDC to a reviewable plan in one call') and enumerates the plan's outputs — operating cash, surplus, mint simulation, trial simulation, blockers — which lets an agent distinguish it from execution siblings like invest_usdc_to_gblin. The opening is a fragment naming the input rather than a clean verb+resource, so it falls just short of a 5.

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?

It places the tool firmly in a workflow ('the tools to call after a human confirms') and draws a boundary ('Reads only: nothing is executed and nothing is advised'), which implies this is the pre-execution planning step. It does not name a specific alternative to use instead if you want to actually execute, so it stops short of explicit when-not guidance.

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