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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered and the description correctly reinforces rather than contradicts it. It adds useful behaviour beyond that: no arguments are required, and each asset field may be null meaning any ticker — a semantic an agent would otherwise misread. It does not discuss rate limits or whether this call itself is token-gated, which keeps it below a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the 'USE WHEN' trigger so the routing decision comes first. The second sentence is a dense but useful list of returned fields with the null-asset clarification; given an output schema exists, that enumeration is mildly redundant but the '(null = any ticker)' gloss earns its 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?

With zero params, full annotation coverage and an output schema, the description carries only the routing and interpretation burden, and it does so: what it returns, that it needs no arguments, and which sibling consumes the slugs. The only gap is that it says tier2_stress_test needs an access token but never states whether listing does, leaving an agent unsure about auth on the very first call of that workflow.

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 baseline is 4, and the description explicitly confirms 'Needs no arguments', removing any doubt about required input. The only semantic detail it conveys about inputs is that absence of args is intentional, which is the right thing to say here.

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+resource (list the strategy catalogue / slugs) and immediately scopes it to the consumer, tier2_stress_test, naming that sibling explicitly. It also enumerates what each entry contains (rules, stop, take-profit, direction, asset), so an agent can tell exactly what it is getting 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?

Opens with an explicit 'USE WHEN you need to know which strategy slugs tier2_stress_test accepts', which is a clear triggering condition tied to a concrete downstream need. It adds the prerequisite context that tier2_stress_test is the full tier and needs an access token, implying this discovery call does not. It stops short of naming a when-not or an alternative discovery tool, but nothing in the sibling list competes for the same purpose.

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