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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds real value by disclosing the result shape (slug, statistics, benchmark beat/trail flag) and the fact that any listed strategy can be re-run free on full history. It omits default sort, default/max limit, and pagination behavior, 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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with what is listed, then the sort semantics, then the return shape, then the re-run affordance. The final sentence about free re-runs is slightly promotional but still functional cross-sell toward strategy_run. No filler beyond that.

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 output schema, the description usefully sketches the entry fields, which is the biggest gap it could have covered. For a zero-required-parameter list tool it is close to adequate, but the missing `limit`/`family` semantics and unspecified defaults leave an agent guessing at filtering and result volume.

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 0%, so the description must carry all parameter meaning. It does this well for `sort`, defining all five enum values with concrete ranking semantics. But `limit` is never mentioned and `family` is only hinted at via the family list without stating that it is a filter parameter, leaving two of three parameters semantically bare.

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?

"List public FinzData Hub strategies" gives a specific verb and resource, and the parenthetical enumerates the actual families (momentum, trend, mean reversion, value, factor, AI Tournament) so the agent knows exactly what universe is returned. It is trivially distinguishable from the sibling strategy_run, which executes a strategy rather than enumerating them.

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 explains what each sort mode means (robust = deflated Sharpe, benchmark = Sharpe above its own benchmark), which is genuine guidance for choosing a sort. However, it never states when to prefer this tool over strategy_run or the workspace_* siblings, and gives no guidance on paging or how many results to expect. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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