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

Goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true) by enumerating what is never copied: credentials, broker bindings, grants, deployments, orders, prompts, runtime setup notes, and trading state. It also clarifies that the copy is dormant, covers only the published revision, and requires follow-up broker/key setup and deployment review. Minor gap: it doesn't disclose whether repeated calls create duplicates, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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 the core action, then parameter-path guidance, then the negative space of what is not copied. Every sentence carries information, but the block is dense and longer than typical; the follow-up workflow sentence could be slightly tightened without losing meaning.

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 six-parameter, non-idempotent mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers permissions, purchase state, share-link auth, and copy scope thoroughly. It stops short of saying what the tool returns (e.g. the new strategy ID) or how the caller learns the clone exists, which would be useful with no output schema.

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%, so baseline is 3; the description earns extra credit by explaining behavioral semantics the schema does not, e.g. that listingId always copies only the explicitly published revision even for the publisher, and that external private-link clones include only non-hidden source files. It does not explain aiStrategyId or the name-defaulting behavior, but the schema already covers those.

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 ('Creates a private dormant copy') and distinguishes the two copy paths: listingId for a Marketplace listing versus strategyId for owned private history. It also names the sibling source of listingId (marketplace_strategies), so an agent can route correctly 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?

Explicitly says when to use each parameter path (listingId for marketplace, strategyId for owned private history, shareToken for private strategies not owned by you) and states prerequisites: publisher must have allowed copying, paid listings require an active purchase, protected links require a password. It also gives clear exclusions, telling the caller not to edit code or start a backtest unless separately requested.

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