fq_get_rebalance

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety traits. However, the description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., side effects, authorization needs) beyond what annotations provide. Score 3 is appropriate as annotations lower the burden.

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 with no extraneous text. It is front-loaded and efficient. However, it could be slightly expanded to improve clarity without losing conciseness.

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 has only two parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic what and why, but lacks details on output or edge cases. For a tool of this simplicity, a score of 3 reflects acceptable but not thorough completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description partially compensates by implying the 'index' parameter is an index code and 'budget' is a cash amount. However, it does not specify valid formats, units, or constraints. The parameter names are self-explanatory, but more detail would improve clarity.

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 'Index rebalance allocation for a cash budget' clearly indicates the tool computes rebalance allocations given an index and a cash budget. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools focused on other financial data or actions, though could add specificity about the output.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it doesn't mention that it should be used for portfolio rebalancing calculations or when to prefer other tools like fq_get_basic_info. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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