registries

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds the crucial behavioral facts they cannot: the tool only runs inside the Stochastly desktop app, that app is not installed on this machine, and a paid licence must be active. This tells the agent the call will fail in the current environment — high-value disclosure beyond structured fields.

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 the blocking prerequisite, then purpose, then routing — a sensible order with no wasted filler. The installation/pricing sentence is slightly long and marketing-toned, but it carries genuinely decision-relevant information about tool availability.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it returns, which keys, sibling alternatives for adjacent needs, and the environmental/licence prerequisites. Nothing material is left to inference.

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 and the schema is an empty object, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description instead documents the return keys (strategy_families, instrument_groups, timeframes), which is useful but belongs to output semantics rather than parameters.

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 ('List') and enumerates the exact resources returned (strategy families, instrument groups, timeframes), plus names the concrete output keys. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings node_catalog and crypto_registry, so an agent can route without opening any schema.

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 exclusions and alternatives with their selecting conditions: 'For the node keys you pass to compose_graph or backtest_graph, use node_catalog instead; for the cross-sectional crypto strategies, use crypto_registry.' It also states the prerequisite context (app open, Atelier/Portfolio licence).

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