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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful scope context (results are limited to accessible strategies in the connected organisation, and publication status is included), but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or result volume.

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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the action and resource before adding the scoping and content qualifiers. No filler or redundancy.

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 zero-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description plus annotations cover what an agent needs: what is returned, whose data, and that the operation is safe. Only minor gaps remain (pagination/ordering), which the output schema may cover.

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; baseline 4 applies. The description's note about access scope is relevant context but is not parameter-related.

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 (lists strategies) and adds meaningful scope: the ones 'you can access in the connected organisation', plus 'including publication status'. It is distinguishable from siblings like get_strategy, create_strategy and delete_strategy, though it never names them 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?

Usage is implied by the verb 'lists' – an agent can infer this is the enumeration tool versus get_strategy for a single record. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as search or get_strategy.

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