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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the two statuses ('live' vs 'planned'), states what can be required, and lists the exact returned fields. It does not mention potential side effects, but the verb 'List' and the catalog nature make read-only behavior reasonably clear.

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: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second clarifies usage context, the third defines status semantics, and the fourth covers the return shape. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundant filler.

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?

For a zero-parameter catalog-listing tool, the description is complete. It explains the domain context, the status logic that affects usage, and the return structure in enough detail. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to separately document each return field's deeper semantics.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds no parameter-specific information because there are none to document, and the schema already indicates that no arguments are required.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and names the resource ('all data feeds available to strategies via ctx.features'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also explains how features relate to strategy execution and required_features, distinguishing it from sibling tools that handle funds, strategies, or prices.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: it lists available data feeds and clarifies that only 'live' features can be used in required_features. It does not explicitly name alternative tools that would be preferred in other scenarios, but no direct alternative is evident among the siblings, and the usage context is strong.

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