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

Annotations already declare the operation is non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds meaningful context beyond that by disclosing the required root-key signing and the fixed market/fee-type constraints, though it does not explain creation effects or side effects.

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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently combines the action, scope constraints, object kind, and signing requirement.

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?

Although an output schema exists and annotations cover safety/idempotency, the input schema is essentially an arbitrary object. For a complex registration operation, the description does not explain the payload fields or enough structure for an agent to construct a valid object.

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 0%, and the only parameter is an unconstrained nested object, so the description must carry the burden of explaining payload shape. It identifies the object kind and mentions market/fee/signature constraints, but it does not describe field names or structure, leaving the required object largely opaque.

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 uses a specific verb-resource pair, 'Register a strategy', and adds scope details such as 'one market, fixed fee type' and the object kind. It distinguishes registration from read-oriented siblings like get_strategy and list_strategies by naming the action, though it does not explicitly contrast alternatives.

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?

The description states a prerequisite ('signed by your root key') and constraints ('one market, fixed fee type'), but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, when-not-to-use conditions, or alternatives among sibling tools.

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