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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden and does disclose meaningful default behavior: leveraged strategies are excluded by default, default sort is newest/best-performing, and each item reports cadence, holdable assets, and period-relative return versus benchmark. It omits auth requirements, pagination limits, and error behavior, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope; every sentence earns its place by describing returned fields or the default exclusion. No filler.

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?

The description compensates for the absent output schema by enumerating what each strategy carries, and all 8 params are schema-documented. It is largely complete for a listing tool, with only pagination and permission/response-shape context missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 8 parameters, making 3 the baseline. The description adds only light meaning beyond the schema, clarifying that sort is newest vs best-performing and that period governs the reported return, without adding format or interaction detail.

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: "List the strategies published on brighter.fi," and clarifies scope with default ordering and returned fields. It is clearly differentiated from a singular get/single-strategy tool by implication, but names no sibling explicitly, so it stops short of the top score.

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?

The line about leveraged/inverse strategies being excluded "unless asked for" gives a real usage cue by pairing with the leveraged param, and ordering hints at the sort enum. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance (e.g., vs get_strategy or find_assets), so usage is only implied.

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