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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile needs no restating. Beyond that the description adds only the raw endpoint path and nothing behavioral – no result count, pagination, or ordering information that would help an agent anticipate the response.

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, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The endpoint path is arguably redundant for invocation, but it costs almost nothing and aids doc cross-referencing.

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 no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the full burden of explaining what comes back, and it does not say what a 'code strategy' record contains or whether the list is paginated. Adequate for invocation, incomplete for understanding the result.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies.

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 ('Get all code strategies'), and 'all' implies an unfiltered list, which separates it from get_strategy_code_id and get_strategy_code_total. It does not explicitly name those siblings or the near-duplicate list_all_public_code_strategy, so it falls short of a 5.

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 word 'all' – an agent can infer this is the bulk-listing variant, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus get_strategy_code_folder or get_strategy_code_id, and no stated prerequisites.

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