Show Optimizer Allocation

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

Annotations already cover the read-only/idempotent/destructive profile, but the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: no scientific calculations occur, JSON is returned unchanged, there is no visual support, and the Revenue/ROI conventions are never mixed. This is meaningful disclosure an agent couldn't infer from the 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?

Front-loads purpose, then the read-only note, then parameter behavior, then data-convention constraints. Dense but every sentence carries information; no filler. The Revenue/ROI sentence is technical but load-bearing for correct interpretation.

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 needn't be detailed, and the description usefully characterizes the return ('existing JSON unchanged'). But it omits any explanation of the required model_hash, leaving a gap for a required input on a moderately complex 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It explains run_id's behavior well (specific run vs. latest model-level result) but says nothing about the required model_hash parameter, leaving one of two parameters undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Show saved allocation spend') and clarifies the output shape ('separate decision/comparison result tables'). It's clearer than a bare 'show' but doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling get_optimizer_results, leaving some ambiguity about which optimizer view to pick.

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?

Provides conditional guidance for run_id ('pass run_id to read a specific saved run; omission reads the latest model-level result'), which is genuine usage context. However, it offers no when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to siblings like get_optimizer_results or run_optimizer.

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