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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds real behavioral context: ownership is resolved by wallet address with a fallback to numeric userId for email accounts, the backing table is named, the default filter widens rather than narrows results, and the call is marked cost: free. What it does not cover is pagination/return behavior, which matters given page/pageSize parameters.

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?

Front-loaded with a category tag then the core purpose, followed by the exclusion warning and parameter default, which is good ordering. It is dense but has minor redundancy, restating the draft/published/archived values already present in the schema.

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, three-optional-parameter list tool this covers ownership semantics, domain boundary, default filter behavior, and cost — enough to call it correctly. The only gap is that with no output schema, the description never hints at what a strategy record contains or how paging results behave.

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 the schema already documents all three optional parameters, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds one genuinely new piece of semantics — that omitting `status` returns all three states rather than none — but adds nothing for page/pageSize and repeats the status values already listed in the schema.

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 ("query strategy list I created") and pins the scope to the strategy-market/subscription domain backed by the `strategies` table. It explicitly excludes live-trading strategies and names where those actually live (`qd_strategies_trading`), so an agent can distinguish this from the trading-side tools without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a concrete negative case: for live strategies do not use this, use REST `GET /api/cex/strategies` instead, including the caveat that endpoint ignores status filters. It also states the status default (all three when omitted). It does not differentiate from nearby MCP siblings such as platform_manage_strategy or platform_strategy_performance, so routing among in-process siblings is still partly inferred.

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