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

The description discloses critical behavioral traits: no live order book, synthetic spread from realised volatility, filled bid/ask mechanics, market-neutral pause in trending regimes, and hidden direction parameters. It honestly labels the strategy as 'APPROXIMATE' and explains the rationale for pausing. This goes far beyond the annotations, which only provide generic hints. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 well-structured and information-dense without unnecessary fluff. It uses capitalization for emphasis and paragraph breaks for readability. Every sentence adds value, though it is slightly longer than average.

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 covers core strategy logic and behavioral constraints well, but omits parameter-level explanations and defers the risk parameter to another tool. With 12 parameters and no schema description coverage, the documentation is incomplete. The presence of an output schema helps but does not fully compensate.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description was expected to explain parameters. It only mentions 'risk' by referencing another tool and vaguely describes spread mechanics. It does not name or explain the 12 parameters like base_spread_pct, mid_period, or vol_spread_mult. The pointer to strategy_dca_create is insufficient.

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 'Create a market-make strategy -- two-sided spread capture (APPROXIMATE)' which is a specific verb+resource. It differentiates from sibling strategy creation tools by explaining the approximate, non-live-order-book nature and market-neutral pause behavior.

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 strong guidance on when to use the tool: for creating a market-neutral spread-capturing strategy that avoids directional exposure. It explicitly states 'instead of adapting direction' and explains the pause-in-trend logic, which implies when not to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools beyond referencing strategy_dca_create for the risk parameter.

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