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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states that the operation adds to the roster, mentions the personal-fund ownership restriction, documents a default weight, and says it returns the updated roster entry. However, it does not disclose what happens if the bot already exists in the roster, whether weights are rebalanced, or whether the fund must be in a particular state to accept changes.

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: a one-line purpose, a key constraint, a cross-reference to list_my_bots, an args list that mirrors the schema, and a return-value note. Every sentence adds value and the most important usage constraint is front-loaded.

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 description need not detail the return shape. It covers the operation, eligibility prerequisites, the personal-fund restriction, all parameters, and the return value. It could optionally warn about weight-sum constraints or duplicate bots, but the core information needed to invoke the tool correctly is present.

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 fully document the parameters, and it does: fund_id, bot_id, bot_domain, and weight each receive meaningful explanations. Examples like 'momentum_eth_v3' and 'eth_usdc', plus the explicit 'initial allocation weight in percent (default 20.0)', add significant value beyond the bare schema names and types.

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 opens with 'Add a bot to a fund's roster', which is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly identifies the action. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like remove_bot_from_fund and swap_bot_in_fund by focusing on the add-to-roster operation, and the constraint about personal funds adds further precision.

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 gives explicit context for when to use this tool: adding a bot to a fund's roster, and notes that personal funds can only contain the authenticated user's own bots. It also directs the agent to list_my_bots to see eligible strategies, providing a concrete prerequisite check. It does not explicitly contrast with swap_bot_in_fund or update_fund_weights, but the usage context is clear enough.

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