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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds genuine scope information that annotations do not carry — that results cover running plus recently stopped strategies, and that each entry carries status, stop reason, and result. The only gap is the boundary of 'recently stopped', which is left undefined.

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?

The scope statement is front-loaded and the whole definition is two short sentences with no filler. It is efficient, though quite terse — a fragment rather than a full sentence, which slightly reduces readability.

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 an output schema present, return shape need not be described, and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. What remains is well covered for a read-only list tool; only the definition of 'recently stopped' is left to inference.

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 the single parameter already documents both accepted forms (base_url from create_ironbox or the ibxs_ secret). The description's 'Needs only the box URL' adds a mild authentication/prerequisite cue but slightly understates the accepted secret form, so it neither compensates for nor extends the schema meaningfully.

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 names a specific resource ('strategies on a Hyperliquid paper box') and enumerates the fields returned (status, stop reason, result), so its purpose is unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_box_activity or list_ironboxes, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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: it lists strategies, so an agent would infer it should be called when inspecting box strategy state, and 'running and recently stopped' hints at the applicable scope. There is no explicit when-to-use versus get_box_activity or list_ironboxes, and no stated exclusions.

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