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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing what is returned (stable algo_id values, strategy summaries, symbols, timeframe, archived flag), which the agent needs to know it can resolve a name to an ID. It omits permission/rate-limit context, so not a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then return shape, then when-to-call. No redundant restatement of the name or title; every sentence carries distinct 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 simple read-only list tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the definition covers purpose, routing, and return content adequately. Minor gaps (e.g. any pagination or empty-result behavior) are mostly handled by the output schema, but not entirely addressed.

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 100% schema coverage on a single parameter, the schema already documents include_inactive and its default. The description's reference to a returned 'archived' flag is tangentially related but does not clarify the filter parameter itself, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and a scoped resource ('saved algorithms owned by the user'), which distinguishes it from the many other algo-related siblings. The ownership qualifier makes the scope unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: 'Call this before update_algo, delete_algo, or activate_algo when the user names an algorithm rather than supplying its ID.' This names the alternatives and the exact condition that selects this tool over them.

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