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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the return format (certification rollup metrics such as run count, median PnL, ruin rate), which is valuable. However, it does not mention pagination behavior, how the limit parameter affects results, or explicitly confirm it is a read-only operation.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and filter options, followed by a clear list of return metrics. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no redundancy.

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 list tool without an output schema, the description provides the essential return metrics and filtering options. It lacks details on sorting and limit semantics, but the schema provides some structure (enums, defaults). Overall, it is sufficiently informative for typical use.

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% (only kind and status have descriptions). The description adds semantic value by stating that kind and status are filters, but it does not explain the sort or limit parameters, which also lack schema descriptions. Thus it partially compensates for the gaps.

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 clearly states it lists strategies and specifies filterable attributes (kind, status), distinguishing it from siblings like get_strategy. It also explicitly enumerates the return metrics, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 implies when to use it (listing multiple strategies with optional filters) and provides clear context for filtering by kind and status. It does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like get_strategy, but the listing focus is evident from the name and description.

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