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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful contextual details about ownership and return fields, but does not mention ordering, pagination, or error behavior beyond the schema's limit parameter.

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 description is two short clauses with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the relationship to run_backtest is stated economically in the second sentence.

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 simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter and rich annotations, the description covers the essential return contents and downstream usage. It stops short of explicitly stating the response shape, but the listed fields and plural 'strategies' make the intent clear.

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 100%, so the sole parameter (limit) is already fully documented. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which matches the baseline for complete schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it retrieves the key owner's saved strategies and enumerates their fields (mode, engines, minimum confidence, direction, symbols). It also links to the sibling tool run_backtest, which helps distinguish why this tool exists.

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 states the practical purpose — retrieving strategy IDs that run_backtest consumes. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the run_backtest connection gives an agent clear situational context for when this tool is relevant.

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