suggest_strategies

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation (suggesting strategies) but does not explicitly state non-destructiveness, authentication requirements, or any side effects. The description is adequate but lacks explicit behavioral disclaimers.

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 concise (two sentences) and front-loads the core action. Every word contributes to explaining the tool's purpose. However, it could be tightened slightly without losing meaning.

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 description does not explain the output format (e.g., list of strategies with details), ordering, or any limitations. Given the absence of an output schema, the description should provide more context about what the agent can expect as a result.

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%, with all four parameters having individual descriptions. The main description merely summarizes these parameters without adding new meaning (e.g., data types, valid ranges, or interplay between filters). Baseline score of 3 applies as the description adds no value beyond the schema.

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 the specific verb 'suggest' and specifies the resource 'trading strategies' while listing explicit filtering criteria (risk tolerance, max drawdown, preferred assets, Sharpe ratio). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like 'list_strategies' or 'generate_strategy' by emphasizing personalization based on risk profile.

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 implies usage when a user wants strategies matching their risk profile, but it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or provide alternatives (e.g., compare_strategies, explain_strategy). The differentiation from siblings is implicit rather than explicit.

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