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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return ID format hint ('bitcoin::fractal_sentinel'), which is genuine extra context, but says nothing about pagination/limit behavior or ordering.

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 sentences, purpose front-loaded, no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness shifts some burden onto the schema rather than fully earning its place.

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?

Output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. What remains thin is usage/routing versus siblings and the undocumented limit parameter, leaving the definition only adequate for the surrounding toolset.

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 50%: asset_slug is documented in the schema and merely echoed by the description's examples (btc, eth), adding no new meaning, while the limit parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 resource (native World/ArenaScript strategies) scoped to an asset slug, and the name list_ implies the verb. It hints at differentiation via 'natives', but doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like list_arena_strategies or list_strategy_templates.

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?

'Utile pour lire des IDs stables style bitcoin::fractal_sentinel' gives one implied use case, but there is no when-to-use vs when-not guidance and no routing to alternatives such as list_arena_strategies. Usage is only indirectly suggested.

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