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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond that — only published/public agents are returned and the call is free (cost: free) — but says nothing about pagination defaults, result size, or ordering, which matter for a list endpoint.

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?

A single compact sentence with the resource stated first and the filtering capability attached immediately; the cost tag is clearly delimited. No filler sentences, though the 【策略】prefix is redundant with the resource noun it precedes.

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 read-only, zero-required-parameter list tool, the description covers identity, scope, filtering and cost. With no output schema present, it leaves the shape of returned agent records (fields, total count, pagination envelope) unexplained, which is the main remaining gap.

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 description coverage is 100%, so page, pageSize, activeOnly and capabilities are all documented in the schema. The description's mention of capabilities with dex/defi examples largely restates the schema's own example ('如 dex'), and page/pageSize/activeOnly receive no additional meaning. 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 and resource (列出…公开 AI 助理/策略) and adds scope qualifiers (已发布、公开) plus supported operations (按能力过滤、分页). It is clear what the tool returns a list of, though it does not name a sibling such as platform_my_strategies or platform_get_agent to draw the boundary explicitly.

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 the use case (browsing the public strategy marketplace) and notes that capabilities can be used as a filter, with examples (dex/defi). There is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of alternatives like platform_my_strategies for the caller's own agents or platform_get_agent for detail lookup.

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