share_strategy

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds critical behavioral context: a privacy guard regex scan that can reject output with addresses/hashes, rounding to 1 decimal to prevent fingerprinting, and confirmation that no signing/broadcast occurs. 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 a single paragraph of about 150 words, efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the output format (JSON string), privacy checks, rounding, and relates to import_strategy. It lacks exact JSON structure details but is sufficiently complete for a well-understood output. Minor gap: no explicit mention of error states beyond RedactionError.

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?

Input schema covers all 9 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds meaning by explaining the output's purpose, the address requirement (at least one despite schema only requiring name), and examples for name and authorLabel. This is above the baseline 3 for full schema coverage.

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 generates a shareable, anonymized JSON snapshot of portfolio structure. It specifies the verb 'Generate shareable JSON snapshot' and distinguishes it from sibling tools like import_strategy.

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 says when to use ('when the user wants to share their setup...') and lists required parameters (at least one address plus name). It also mentions the alternative tool 'import_strategy' for the recipient.

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