build_investment_plan

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It clearly discloses deterministic behavior, no forecasts, and no execution, which are the main side-effect/safety traits. It does not mention any persistence/errors, but the output contents are enumerated.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by a compact list of deliverables plus two short exclusions. Every clause 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?

For a 10-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives a helpful high-level picture but leaves parameter semantics and selection context under-specified. It is functional but not fully 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?

Schema description coverage is only 10%. The description does not explain most of the 10 parameters; 'fee-aware contribution cadence' hints at fee params but cash_now, start_date, rebalance_band_abs, review_every_months, etc. are left to name inference.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Turn four rookie answers into a deterministic plan', then enumerates exactly what the plan contains. 'No return forecast' and 'Nothing is executed' sharply delimit it from forecast and execution siblings like backtest_plan and generate_order_plan.

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 implies the tool is used after four rookie answers exist and contrasts with execution/forecast tools, but it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over siblings or names alternatives. The guidance is inferable, not stated.

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