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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the ownership eligibility rule, that the rationale text is published publicly in the manager log (a real, non-obvious side effect), and that the call returns the updated roster entry. It omits duplicate-handling, roster size limits, and manager-permission requirements.

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?

Front-loaded statement of effect, then the eligibility constraint, then parameters. The Args block is justified because the schema has zero descriptions, though the docstring formatting is slightly verbose for a five-field tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need only light treatment and the description handles it in one line. For a mutation with no annotations, the key risks — eligibility, public log exposure, initial weight semantics — are all covered; failure modes and permission requirements are the missing pieces.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and does: all five parameters are explained with units (weight in percent, default 20.0), concrete examples ("momentum_eth_v3", "eth_usdc"), and a purpose for rationale. An agent can populate every field without opening the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: "Add a bot to a fund's roster." This clearly separates it from remove_bot_from_fund and swap_bot_in_fund by semantics, and the personal-fund eligibility line narrows scope further. It stops short of naming the sibling it should be preferred over, so not a 5.

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?

"Use list_my_bots to see eligible strategies" gives an explicit prerequisite step, and the personal-funds restriction tells the agent when this call is even valid. No guidance on add vs. swap_bot_in_fund or set_fund_lineup for replacing a bot, which is the remaining gap.

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