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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The description adds useful output-oriented context by naming the fields returned (broker, live/paper account type, status, position size), but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or what an empty result means.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler: the first states the action and scope, the second enumerates the returned fields. The most important information is front-loaded and nothing is redundant with the schema.

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 simple zero-argument read tool, the description plus annotations cover the essentials: it is safe, scoped to the caller's strategy, and the returned fields are previewed even though no output schema exists. Only minor gaps remain (result ordering or whether an empty list is possible) and these are unlikely to change how an agent calls it.

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 takes zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.

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 a specific verb and resource ("List bots") and adds scope ("deployed on your strategy"), so an agent knows exactly what is returned. It stops short of distinguishing itself from siblings like nyria_strategy_info or nyria_positions, which could also be plausible sources of account/strategy data.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase "deployed on your strategy" and by the listed fields (broker, account type, status, position size). There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of when to prefer nyria_strategy_info or nyria_positions instead, and no stated prerequisites such as needing a configured strategy.

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