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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: exact buy/sell signal logic, the discretionary SEC execution path, the requirement for user_confirmed=True for tokenized securities, autonomous crypto behavior, and a precondition to call asset_classification. This is high-value operational context that helps the agent understand execution implications.

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 front-loaded: purpose, mechanics, then critical operational caveats, then a pointer to related parameter docs. It has no filler, though the internal task reference and SEC jargon make it somewhat dense.

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 the core strategy behavior and the most important operational caveat (security vs crypto confirmation), and an output schema exists so return values need not be described. However, it relies on another tool's documentation for risk/direction parameters and leaves several other parameters undocumented, so an agent would still need to infer or search for complete guidance.

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%, and the description only explains fast/slow SMA semantics and defers risk/direction parameters to another tool's documentation. Most parameters (usd_per_buy, target_token, wallet_address, slippage_bps, interval_seconds, regime_override, allow_short, direction_mode) remain unexplained, leaving a significant semantic gap for a 12-parameter tool.

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 identifies the tool as creating a momentum strategy and defines the exact mechanics: fast/slow SMA crossover entry/exit with buys on bullish crosses and sells on bearish crosses. It is specific enough to distinguish it from other strategy creation siblings, though it does not explicitly contrast with them.

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: call asset_classification first, and explains the SEC discretionary framework where security targets require per-execution user confirmation while crypto targets remain autonomous. It also points to strategy_dca_create for risk/direction parameters, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives.

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