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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable output-level context by enumerating the returned fields (rebalance frequency, holdings count, 1y/5y returns, annualized return, max drawdown) and the decimal convention, which is meaningful beyond 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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, followed by the exact fields and a compact decimal clarification. Every clause adds information; nothing is repetitive or padded.

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 carries the burden of explaining returned values, and it does list the core metrics and decimal convention. It does not describe the overall response shape (e.g., array of strategy objects) or ordering, leaving a small but real gap for a list tool.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description's only parameter-like detail is the decimal formatting note, which pertains to return values rather than inputs; no input semantics are needed for this 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 (list) and resource (public VelaDeck strategies) plus the returned scope: all strategies. It implies distinction from the sibling get_strategy by emphasizing 'every', but never names the sibling, so the differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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?

'Use it to compare strategies' provides a positive use case, but there is no guidance on when not to use it or when to prefer get_strategy for a single strategy, or get_pricing. The usage condition is implied rather than fully specified.

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