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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the per-call cost (0.005 USDC via x402 vs. free with an API key), that counts exclude partner listings, that the agent must not speculate about caching or filters, and that a search result never implies ownership. These are exactly the non-obvious behaviors an agent would otherwise get wrong.

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 with purpose and the platform-applies-filters rule, which is the most load-bearing sentence. The long middle enumeration of every filter dimension duplicates the schema and bloats the paragraph, though the closing adoption and access sentences each earn their place.

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 24-parameter, zero-required search with no output schema, the description covers scope, cost, server-side filtering, and the adopt handoff. It stops short of describing the result shape or pagination semantics beyond the offset/limit params, which is a modest gap given no output schema exists.

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 100% and every parameter already has a self-describing entry, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's enumeration of filter dimensions (return, IRR, Sharpe, drawdown ceiling, regime, free-only, etc.) largely restates the schema rather than adding syntax, ranges, or interaction rules, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and pins down scope: 'the platform's own listings, which are digital-asset strategies on crypto pairs'. It explicitly separates itself from the marketplace page's merged NexusTrade partner listings and from adoption (propose_adopt), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like get_marketplace_strategy or list_strategies.

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?

Gives concrete trigger phrases ('find me a', 'what is on the marketplace', 'best Sharpe on ETH'), a process rule ('do not fetch a page and filter it yourself'), and an explicit handoff for the adjacent intent ('To adopt one, call propose_adopt with its strategy_id'). It also states a when-not caveat about partner listings.

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