check_allocation_bands

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the operation (evaluate allocation drift) and scenario structure, but fails to state whether the tool is read-only, if it requires specific permissions, or what happens upon drift detection. The existence of an output schema mitigates missing return value details, but overall behavioral context is minimal.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value: the first states the overall function, the second details scenario structure and defaults.

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 complexity of evaluating multiple scenarios and the existence of an output schema, the description covers the main usage requirements adequately. It explains the scenario structure and default. However, it could be more complete by mentioning the expected format of allocation_pct or potential error conditions.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant meaning: it clarifies that each scenario object requires 'target_pct' and optionally accepts 'name' and 'band' with a default of 0.15. This goes beyond the schema's basic types and structures. However, it does not explain the 'allocation_pct' parameter beyond its name, leaving some gap.

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 evaluates allocation drift against multiple target_pct/band scenarios in one call. It uses specific verbs ('evaluate allocation drift') and identifies the resource (allocation bands with scenarios). The mention of 'multiple' distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'check_allocation_band', which likely handles a single scenario.

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 usage for multiple scenarios with 'in one call', but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the singular sibling or other tools. There is no guidance on when not to use it or alternatives, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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