Optimize an allocation

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

Annotations already provide strong safety hints (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false), so the description's burden is lower. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying what is returned (per-market amounts, blended APY, 6-month yield), which informs the agent about result structure. No contradictions.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, inputs, and outputs. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff. Every part serves a purpose.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, but with annotations), the description adequately explains what the tool does and what it returns. It does not cover edge cases or algorithmic details, but for a read-only optimization tool, the essential information is present. Could mention that the result is a simulation, but overall sufficient.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema; it only briefly mentions 'maximise yield' and 'target diversification', which align with schema descriptions. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Split an amount across chosen markets to maximise yield at a target diversification, returning per-market amounts, the blended APY and a projected 6-month yield.' It uses a specific verb (split/optimize) and resource (allocation), and distinguishes from sibling 'list_market_universe' which lists markets rather than optimizing an allocation.

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 implies the tool is used for optimizing yield given a diversification target, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus the sibling tool 'list_market_universe' or provide when-not-to-use or alternative guidance. The usage context is implied but not clarified.

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