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

With no annotations, the description usefully discloses access requirements and pricing: x402 auto-pay or API-key authentication. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or error/rate-limit characteristics, but the get-style read operation is clear from the content.

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 front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by when to call it, then access details. The information is dense but every sentence earns its place, and the access note is clearly separated.

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 no-parameter tool without an output schema or annotations, the description adequately explains what each returned execution-config entry carries, including defaults, bounds, effects, and classifications. It also covers access requirements and intended timing, leaving no critical gap for an agent to call it correctly.

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 input parameters, so parameter semantics are not a meaningful source of ambiguity. Baseline 4 is appropriate because there are no parameters for the description to clarify.

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 states a precise resource and scope: 'Every execution-config parameter a strategy can carry.' It also enumerates the metadata returned for each parameter, making the tool's purpose unmistakable without opening the schema.

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?

It gives a clear usage rule: 'Call it before discussing or overriding any risk parameter.' It explains the motivation, avoiding memory-based descriptions, but does not name alternatives or when not to call it.

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