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

Annotations already declare the read-only/non-destructive profile, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds a genuinely non-obvious trait: default rows deliberately omit watchlist fields and opting in is audited/logged. That privacy/audit behavior is not inferable from schema or annotations.

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?

The core behavior is front-loaded, but the Args block largely restates the include_details explanation already given in prose, including repeating the audit note. It is not wasteful, but the duplication adds length without new information.

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 must describe return shape, and it does: it names the default row fields (ID, strategy_type, strategy_code, trade_count, tier, performance_tier) and the opt-in fields. Only pagination/ordering behavior is unstated.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: limit gets a range (1-100) and default (20) not present in the schema, and include_details is mapped to specific returned fields. Slight redundancy with the body paragraph keeps it from a 5.

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+resource ("List the user's saved trading configs") plus provenance ("exported from strategy builders"), which distinguishes it from siblings like list_my_backtests or list_my_projects. An agent can identify the target with no schema inspection.

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?

It clearly explains the default-vs-detailed behavior and when to opt in ("Pass include_details=True to opt into the full row"), but gives no guidance on tool selection relative to siblings or any prerequisites. Usage is implied through the parameter semantics rather than a selection rule.

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