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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that: user-specific max per trade is pre-filled, app_links are deep links that open the Moby app, and the full strategy prompt is deliberately absent and must be fetched via get_strategy.

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 front-loaded with what the tool returns and then moves into usage guidance. It is dense and somewhat long, but nearly every sentence carries actionable information for recommendation behavior.

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?

An output schema exists, yet the description still names the key returned fields and explains how to use them. It also covers the critical missing piece, the full prompt, by routing the agent to get_strategy.

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 are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description does not need to compensate for missing schema coverage.

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: lists starter strategy cards from the Strategies section, with the exact fields returned. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_strategy by saying the full prompt is not here and must be fetched separately.

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?

Gives explicit timing (during or after onboarding, when the user asks what strategies exist), a concrete recommendation workflow using recommended_strategies from the trading profile, category-to-card mappings, and a guardrail to recommend only returned cards.

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