recExploreStrategy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns up to 6 strategies, has a rate limit, and spans multiple symbols. It does not mention authentication requirements or side effects, but given it's a read operation with a safe profile, the disclosure is adequate for agent decision-making.

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 two short, well-structured paragraphs. The first explains the core function, the second provides rate limit and an agent hint. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or irrelevant information.

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?

The tool is simple (1 param, no output schema) and the description covers purpose, usage, rate limit, and an alternative. It does not explain the biz_type enum values or mention return format, but given the tool's intended context (populating an explore page), the description is sufficiently complete for agent use. Minor gap in enum documentation prevents a perfect score.

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 input schema has only one parameter, biz_type, with enum values '0'-'8' but no description in the schema. The description says 'for a given biz_type' and the agent hint clarifies it's a bot type, but it does not define what each enum value means. With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds some context but leaves the agent to infer the mapping, which could lead to incorrect selection.

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 tool returns up to 6 Aurora-recommended strategies for a given biz_type, spanning multiple symbols. It explicitly explains the use case: populating the explore page where users browse by bot type without first picking a symbol, which distinguishes it from similar tools like recAuroraCreationAIParams.

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 provides explicit guidance: 'Use this when the user wants to browse Aurora's picks for a specific bot type... without committing to a symbol. To narrow down by symbol once chosen, switch to `/v5/aurora/creation`.' It also includes a rate limit of 20 requests per second per UID per path, giving concrete usage boundaries.

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