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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: a paid endpoint at $0.50 USDC per call via x402 on Base mainnet, plus a free validation path. It still doesn't disclose runtime, combo-explosion failure behavior, or what the returned ranking/overfitting report contains.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core value proposition and followed by the commercial and prerequisite details. Every clause adds information; nothing is padding.

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 9-parameter, nested-object, paid optimization tool with no output schema, the description explains intent and pricing but not the shape of the result (how robust params are reported, what the overfitting flag looks like, how ranked candidates are returned). An agent knows what it does but not what it gets back.

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 67% and several parameters carry their own descriptions (universe modes, min_age_days, fee, slippage, initial_capital, grid limits). The description adds nothing about the ambiguously named 'rank_by' enum (robust vs return) or how 'grid' interacts with fixed 'params', leaving the most decision-relevant parameter undocumented in prose.

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 ('Find robust strategy params') plus the mechanism: tests up to 50 combos, ranks by worst-half return with neighbourhood smoothing, flags overfitting, and recommends robust over best-fit parameters. It is clearly differentiated from a plain backtest sibling because it explicitly says it does not pick the best-fit result.

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?

Gives a clear routing rule via the free pre-check ('validate_optimize') and frames the tool for robustness-seeking use ('not lucky ones'). It does not state when NOT to use it (e.g., single-parameter backtests should use backtest instead), so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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