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

The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: rows are capped, detail mode changes the fields returned, and an unrecognized detail value falls back to concise without error. Given the annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, this provides meaningful additional transparency.

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 appropriately concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The detail parameter explanation is compact and useful. The phrase 'as before' is slightly out-of-context but does not unduly hurt clarity.

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 output schema exists, the annotations cover safety, and there are only two parameters, the description covers the important behavioral aspects: ordering, cap, detail modes, and fallback. Minor gaps remain, such as what 'capped' limits and any wallet address formatting requirements, but these are not critical for basic correct invocation.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so well for the 'detail' parameter by explaining both values, default behavior, and fallback semantics. 'wallet_address' is left to its name and context, which is mostly sufficient but not explicitly detailed.

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 states a clear purpose: list a wallet's strategies, with ordering (newest first) and a cap. This is specific enough to be understood, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like discover_strategies or get_strategy_suggestions, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 implies when to use it, especially through the concise mode explanation that provides strategy IDs needed to chain into strategy_status/strategy_modify/strategy_cancel/strategy_pause/strategy_resume. However, it does not explicitly describe when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives.

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