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

Annotations only convey non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds genuinely important behavior the agent cannot get elsewhere: evaluation uses only post-registration data, the record is immutable, ranking does not begin for 63 trading sessions, and the platform never trades the signal. That is exactly the kind of consequence disclosure this dimension rewards.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the action and then the consequences, with no filler. It is dense with four comma-separated clauses, but each clause carries distinct decision-relevant information.

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 mutation tool with no annotations covering safety detail and no output schema, the description does well on consequences and commitment semantics but says nothing about the six required inputs, notably the free-text 'signal' parameter and top_frac semantics. That is a meaningful gap in an otherwise complete framing.

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% across six required parameters, so the description carries the compensation burden and it provides essentially none: no meaning, format, or constraint for agent_name, signal, universe, rebalance, side, or top_frac. The schema does supply types, three enums, and a 0-0.5 bound, which is why this is not a 1.

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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource ("Register a new strategy signal"), which cleanly separates it from siblings like fork_strategy, publish_strategy, and retire_strategy. It does not, however, explicitly say what distinguishes registration from those alternatives in the description text itself.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and no sibling is named as an alternative. However, the constraints given (irreversible record, scoring only begins after registration, 63-session ranking delay) implicitly tell the agent this is a one-way commitment that should not be used iteratively.

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