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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description still adds real behavioral value — the dual-ID payload shape, the fuzzy/token-matching semantics of the name filter, and the warning that near misses may be returned. It omits pagination behavior and result ordering, 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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then ID payload, then filter semantics, then usage routing — a sensible order. It runs long for a list tool, and the final clause about only reading/editing the named strategy drifts into downstream orchestration guidance rather than describing this call, though it is still decision-relevant.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe the return payload — and it does, naming both identifier fields and where they can be reused. Combined with the filter-behavior explanation and the disambiguation rule, an agent has everything needed to call this tool and interpret its results 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the *practical consequence* of the name filter — case-insensitive plus close word-token matches — and what that implies for the agent's reasoning ('inspect the returned names before saying the strategy does not exist'). It says nothing about limit/offset beyond what the schema already documents.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource+scope: 'Returns all strategies owned by the current user.' It further distinguishes itself from the sibling get_strategy by framing the result as a collection whose items carry both strategyId and aiStrategyId for use with delete_strategy, list_revisions, start_backtest. An agent can tell immediately this is the discovery/list tool rather than a single-strategy fetch.

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?

Explicit when-to-use with concrete trigger phrases ('the one entitled X', 'apply this to X also', 'do not change Y') and a stated precedence rule when a named target conflicts with the open page context. It also gives a diagnostic instruction: if an exact phrase returns a near miss, inspect returned names before declaring the strategy absent. This is unusually complete routing guidance for a list tool.

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