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

The description contradicts annotations: annotations set readOnlyHint=true (implying no state modification), but the description states 'Persists an sr param block' which is a write operation. This is a severe inconsistency. While the description adds some behavioral context (ownership check, back-compat), the contradiction dominates.

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 moderately concise at about 150 words, but the list of sr_config knobs could be offloaded to the schema if the schema had descriptions. The structure is front-loaded with the main action, and the workflow reference is useful, but there is some redundancy in explaining ownership.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 params, nested objects, output schema), the description lacks details on merge behavior (does it replace or augment existing config?) and error handling (what happens if not owner?). The annotation contradiction further undermines completeness. The workflow reference helps, but gaps remain.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden. It lists the internal knobs of the sr_config object (sensitivity, sources, lookback, etc.), adding meaning beyond the schema's additionalProperties. However, it does not describe strategy_id or wallet_address in detail, which are inferred from the ownership constraint.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Attach an S/R config block to YOUR OWN strategy (ownership-checked).' It specifies the verb (attach/configuring), the resource (strategy with S/R parameters), and differentiates from siblings by mentioning the workflow involving sr_detect_levels and sr_backtest.

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 description provides clear usage context: 'Workflow: DECIDE step -- after sr_detect_levels + sr_backtest confirm the level picture, store the tuned config on the strategy.' It implies when to use and points to get_trading_workflow for more details, but does not explicitly state when not to use.

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