suggest_asset_allocation

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

Discloses the use of the 100-age equity rule with adjustments and its role as the authoritative split calculator. Without annotations, it does not describe error handling, state changes, or limitations, but offers reasonable insight into its method.

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?

Concise, with main purpose upfront, no redundant sentences. Could be slightly more structured but overall efficient.

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?

Provides enough context for a suggestion tool, but lacks detail on output structure (e.g., whether percentages, amounts, or both). With an output schema present, the description could be leaner; however, given no annotations, it is adequate.

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 0% but description clarifies risk_profile values and the effect of monthly_investment. Other parameters (age, investment_horizon_years) receive no additional explanation, partially compensating for schema gaps.

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 it suggests asset allocation based on age, risk profile, and horizon. Mentions the 100-age equity rule and relationship to sibling assess_risk_profile, but lacks explicit differentiation on when to choose one over the other.

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 some guidance: it is the single source of truth for the split and mentions assess_risk_profile returns same numbers. Also notes that passing monthly_investment yields per-bucket amounts. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisites.

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