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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: it clarifies that DCA is mechanical and autonomous (no per-execution confirmation gate) unlike discretionary types, and that equity classification triggers geo-gating and disclaimers. This is valuable and not directly captured in the annotations. No contradiction exists; the description aligns with the destructive/read-write hints.

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 long but well-structured: it opens with the core action, then explains the shared mechanics, SEC posture, and necessary preconditions, ending with a pointer to the sibling tool. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and avoids unnecessary fluff. While it could be trimmed slightly, the information density is high and every sentence serves a purpose.

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 tool with 11 parameters and an output schema, the description provides strong contextual guidance: it clarifies when to use it (equity target), prerequisites (call asset_classification/get_disclaimers), the autonomy behavior, and where to find parameter details. It doesn't explain the return value, but the presence of an output schema covers that. Delegating the detailed parameter semantics to strategy_dca_create is acceptable given the explicit 'identical mechanics' statement. Overall, it is complete for an agent to correctly invoke this 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?

Given schema coverage is 0%, the description compensates by directing the agent to strategy_dca_create for risk/direction semantics via the phrase 'risk / direction params: see strategy_dca_create' and by stating all config is 'identical mechanics/config'. It also adds explicit meaning for target_token as a 'tokenized-equity mint'. This effectively delegates parameter explanation to a closely related tool while adding key semantic context, though it doesn't describe each parameter individually in this description.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Create an equity dollar-cost-average strategy' with the added scope 'tokenized equities / xStocks'. It differentiates itself from the sibling strategy_dca_create by explicitly noting it 'Shares the DCA executor -- identical mechanics/config' but is 'tagged equity_dca' because the target_token is expected to be a tokenized-equity mint. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinct from other strategy creation tools.

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 usage context by referencing strategy_dca_create for risk/direction parameters and stating 'identical mechanics/config'. It also advises calling asset_classification / get_disclaimers first, which are clear preconditions. It distinguishes this tool from discretionary strategies by explaining the SEC posture, implying it should be used for mechanical DCA on security targets. However, it doesn't explicitly enumerate all alternative tools or exclusions beyond strategy_dca_create, but the differentiation is sufficient for most use cases.

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