check_allocation_band

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions returning hints like within_band, etc., giving some behavioral context. But it fails to disclose read-only nature, authorization needs, or rate limits. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Two concise sentences with the main action upfront. No redundant information. The second sentence provides a helpful usage hint. Well-structured for quick parsing.

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 3 parameters with nested objects and an output schema, the description covers the purpose, output hints, and a usage scenario. However, it lacks detail on parameter formats and the contradiction about required inputs weakens completeness. The output schema existence helps but is not shown.

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 should compensate. It mentions the assets BTC/ETH/CASH but does not specify the structure of allocation_pct and target_pct objects (keys, meaning). The band parameter is described only as a number. The claim that all three inputs are required is misleading since band has a default.

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?

Clearly states the tool checks band weights against a target and returns a hint (within_band, etc.), specifying assets BTC/ETH/CASH. However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'check_allocation_bands' (plural) which likely has a similar purpose.

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 guidance to pass target_pct on get_context_bundle for bundle drift, indicating a specific use case. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives, and the claim 'All three inputs are required' contradicts the schema where band has a default.

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