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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them with genuinely useful behavioural context: strategies are 'not live with real funds yet', and the vault itself enforces limits — both of which materially change how an agent should treat the output.

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 front-loaded sentence that opens with the resource and then lists its facets in a parenthetical. Dense but zero filler; the nested clauses make it slightly harder to scan than a two-sentence split would be.

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?

With no input schema and no output schema, the description must describe the return payload itself, and it does so by enumerating what each strategy entry covers, plus the honest-status caveat. Adequate for a read-only reference tool, though it never states the shape or volume of the result.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a 0-param tool applies. The description correctly focuses on payload content rather than inputs.

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 names a concrete resource and scope: the set of strategies rentable to run a Cubicle spot vault, and enumerates the content returned (parameters, venues, assets, limits, fee, rental path, status). It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-neighbours like 'catalogue', 'plans', or 'strategy_quote', so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Usage is only implied: the mention of 'how to rent it' suggests this is the discovery step before renting, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not, and no pointer to strategy_quote/plans/my_vaults as the alternatives for pricing or managing a position.

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