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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, which tells the agent this is a non-destructive write, so the description is not carrying the safety burden. However, it adds nothing behavioral of its own: no auth/permission needs, no note that a created strategy may start generating signals, no interaction with send_signal or webhook_id, and no statement that the call is non-idempotent.

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 verb and resource come first and the endpoint path is a harmless secondary detail. It is efficient, though it is arguably terse to the point of under-specification rather than maximally informative.

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 create endpoint with a nine-field nested payload and no output schema, the description is the minimum viable: it names the operation but says nothing about what a code strategy is, how it relates to webhooks/folders, or what a successful creation returns. The rich nested schema compensates for the field-level gaps, which keeps this at an adequate rather than inadequate level.

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 description contributes zero parameter information, but the nested schema itself documents all nine body fields with conditional requirements ('required if send_signal is true', 'required if use_price is true') and the max-255 constraint. The reported 0% coverage is an artifact of the unlabeled top-level 'body' wrapper, so the schema is effectively doing the heavy lifting and the baseline of 3 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 clear verb+resource ('Create a new code strategy') and even echoes the REST path, so an agent knows this is a creation endpoint. It does not differentiate itself from close siblings such as post_strategy_code_duplicate or post_strategy_code_folder, which is the only thing keeping it out of the top band.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives, even though the sibling list contains two near-identical POST tools for this resource family. The agent must infer entirely from the name that this is the plain create rather than the duplicate or folder variant.

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