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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description's job is to add domain context. It does: live and backtest records are reported as separate records, and returns are before trading costs — both are meaningful behavioral facts an agent cannot infer from the 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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then a dense enumeration of returned fields followed by two clarifying sentences. The field list is a long run-on clause that could be broken up, but every clause carries information and nothing is redundant.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned fields and separating live from backtest records, which is the key semantic an agent needs. A brief note on ordering, pagination, or whether the list is exhaustive would close the remaining gap.

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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description instead spends its words on the shape of the result, which is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool.

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 (lists) and resource (strategies/model portfolios) and enumerates exactly what each entry contains: slug, update cadence, holdings, live vs backtest records, latest list date, next update. It is clearly distinguishable from the singular sibling get_strategy by being a collection-level listing, though it never explicitly names that sibling.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus get_strategy or get_strategy_changes, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The disclaimer that strategies are 'not recommendations or investment advice' is a legal caveat, not usage guidance for an agent selecting a tool.

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