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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds real context beyond that: the prompt text is the app-copied canonical version, `ask_before_every_trade` only adds a line on cards where `ask_line_supported` is true, and `app_links` are deep links for the user's phone. It omits behavior on an invalid/unknown `strategy_id`, but otherwise the downstream side-effects (a human-facing instructions session, a separate save call) are clearly disclosed.

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?

Front-loaded with what is returned, then ordered preconditions and follow-up actions; nearly every clause carries operational information. It is dense with backticked identifiers and could be trimmed slightly, but nothing is redundant.

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 and annotations covering safety, the description need not explain return values, and it supplies the full call-and-save workflow plus the capability-gated flag behavior. Only failure handling for a bad `strategy_id` is unaddressed.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema lacks: `strategy_id` is bound to the `save_active_strategy` call, and `ask_before_every_trade` is qualified by the `ask_line_supported` capability gate, which the schema's plain 'True adds the line' does not mention.

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 states the tool returns one starter strategy plus its ready-to-run `prompt` text ('the same text the app copies'), which distinguishes it from `list_strategies` (browsing cards) and `save_active_strategy` (persisting a choice). The retrieval verb itself is only implied by 'One starter strategy with...', but the resource and payload are unambiguous.

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?

It sequences the workflow explicitly: run the prompt as standing instructions, confirm editable `chips` with the user first, check `get_my_active_strategies` to avoid double-running, then record via `save_active_strategy` with `strategy_id` after user approval. Alternatives and their selection conditions are named rather than left to inference.

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