Create DCA Plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds scheduling constraints (frequency, day_of_week, day_of_month) but does not disclose side effects beyond that, such as whether repeated calls create duplicate plans, margin behavior, or response shape.

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 compact, front-loaded with the action verb, and conveys the key scheduling constraints without any filler. Every clause adds useful 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?

For a create tool with no output schema, the description omits details about return values, failure behavior, or consequences of non-idempotency. While required parameters are clear and schema fully documents optional ones, a mutation tool could benefit from at least a note on what a successful call returns or whether creation can be repeated.

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 every parameter already has a description in the input schema. The description's frequency and day_of_week/day_of_month details essentially restate the schema, adding no new semantic meaning. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 opens with 'Create a DCA recurring investment plan' – a specific verb and resource that immediately identifies the action. It is clearly distinguished from siblings like dca_update, dca_stop, and dca_list by the use of 'Create'.

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 intended use case ('create a recurring investment plan') is clearly stated and leaves no doubt about when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, though the sibling group makes the contrast obvious.

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