queryStrategyList

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: sorting order (newest first), pagination via nextCursor, maximum and default pageSize, Unix timestamp units for time filters, and semantic meanings of status values. This goes well beyond the structured 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 longer than average but well-structured with clear headings and bullets, making it scannable. Most content earns its place, though the agent hint partially repeats earlier usage guidance and could be trimmed. Overall it is appropriately sized for a tool with nine parameters and multiple query modes.

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 lack of an output schema, the description covers the parameters, status semantics, pagination behavior, sorting, and time units thoroughly. It does not describe the response fields beyond nextCursor, but the core usage guidance is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Although the input schema has 0% description coverage, the description compensates fully by explaining the purpose of each parameter group: strategyId for exact lookup, symbol/category/strategyType/status for filtering, beginTimeE0/endTimeE0 for time range queries, and cursor/pageSize for pagination. It also adds constraints not in the schema, such as pageSize maximum=50 and default=20.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve a list of strategies') with a clear resource and scope, and thoroughly distinguishes the different query modes it supports. It clearly differentiates from sibling strategy tools by emphasizing listing/filtering/pagination rather than creation, modification, or stopping.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool, including checking status, monitoring running strategies, and reviewing completed ones, plus common user query examples. It does not explicitly name alternative tools to use instead, so it lacks full when-not-to-use guidance, but the usage context is very clear.

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