reason

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses cost (~500 sats) and output format (string). However, it does not mention side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. Adds some value but not comprehensive.

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?

Description is short (5 sentences), front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value: purpose, use cases, best-fit, output, cost. No fluff.

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 moderate complexity (2 params, output schema exists), description covers purpose, use cases, output format, and cost. Missing potential details like error handling or limits, but sufficient for the tool type.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema; it only states the output format. No extra parameter context provided.

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 the verb 'strategic reasoning' on 'any question or topic', and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying use cases like open-ended analysis, market commentary, and research, contrasting with binary yes/no questions.

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?

Explicitly says when to use (open-ended analysis, nuanced thinking) and what it's best for. Implies not for binary questions, but does not name an alternative tool like 'decision'. Provides clear context but lacks explicit exclusion.

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