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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the tool is known to be non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it notes that for perps on Robinhood Chain, APYs are 'financing carry only', and that equity vault IDs start with 'equity-'. These are nuances beyond the schema. No contradiction with annotations.

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 moderately long but efficiently packed. It front-loads the main purpose, then organizes chain-specific details with clear structure (Mainnet vs Robinhood Chain). Every sentence provides useful information; there is no filler. It could be slightly shorter by merging the category explanation, but it remains well-structured.

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?

Given the tool has two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the list contains (risk facts list), chain differences, and special cases. It does not mention pagination, sorting, or limits, but for a listing tool this is acceptable. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by listing the risk fact fields.

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. The description enriches both parameters: chainId is explained with supported values and a default, and category is expanded with examples ('stocks' as equity vaults, 'Other' as perps) and the note that filtering is optional. This adds meaning beyond the schema definitions.

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 'List eligible Spiral strategies on a chain with raw risk facts', which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_strategy (which likely retrieves a single strategy) and build_* tools (which construct transactions) by focusing on listing with risk metrics. The chain-specific details (Mainnet vs Robinhood Chain) further clarify scope.

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 this tool: when you need a list of strategies with risk facts, as opposed to building transactions or retrieving a single strategy. It provides context on chain-specific differences and the optional category filter, but does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions. This is clear enough for an agent to infer usage, though not as explicit as naming siblings.

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