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

With all annotation hints set to false, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds important behavioral context: encrypted storage, per-user isolation, and the requirement for memory-enabled accounts. It also implies automatic execution timestamps. It does not describe action-specific side effects (e.g., overwriting on set) or idempotency, but the exclusions and storage details are valuable beyond the 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 three sentences with no wasted words: first sentence states purpose, second lists exclusions, third gives requirements. It is front-loaded and structured logically, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly. Every sentence adds distinct value without redundancy.

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 has 5 parameters, 0 required, an action enum, and an output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, exclusions, and access requirements. It does not explicitly describe the CRUD nature (get/update/delete) beyond the schema, but the output schema and parameter schema fill that gap. The description is complete enough for an agent to understand the tool's role and constraints.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add per-parameter meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'strategy text' and 'result' but does not clarify interaction between parameters (e.g., id required for update/delete) or constraints like maximum length, which the schema already documents. The description's value is contextual rather than parameter-specific, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 function: 'Store user-authored strategy text, execution timestamps, and the most recent result in encrypted per-user storage.' This specific verb+resource pair distinguishes it from siblings like 'preferences' and other domain tools. The exclusions ('does not provide presets, define opportunities, choose domains, or execute a workflow') further clarify its limited scope, aligning with the tool's role as a state storage utility.

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 stating exclusions ('does not provide presets, define opportunities...') and a prerequisite ('Requires a registered account with memory enabled'). This helps an agent know when NOT to use it, but it does not explicitly say 'use this when you need to persist strategy state' or compare to alternatives. Given the absence of similar sibling tools, the exclusions are sufficient guidance.

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