direct_list_strategies

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds 'with paging' and the concrete API version, which are real behavioral facts beyond the annotations. It stops short of stating default page size behavior or whether strategy_ids/archived are applied server-side.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the core operation, followed immediately by the routing alternatives. No filler sentences and nothing redundant with the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety. However, for a paged, filter-capable list tool with four undocumented parameters, the absence of any filter/paging semantics leaves a meaningful gap in what an agent needs to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must carry the semantics and largely does not. 'With paging' loosely implies limit/offset, but the `archived` YES/NO filter and the `strategy_ids` selector — the two parameters that most affect the result set — are never explained.

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?

States a precise verb+resource ('List Direct shared (portfolio) strategies') and even names the underlying API call (Strategies.get v501), which disambiguates it from the many other list_* siblings. An agent can identify the exact operation without opening the schema.

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 routes two neighboring needs to alternatives: a campaign's own strategy goes to `direct_get_campaign`, and type-specific fields go to `direct_get_inventory` with service=strategies. That is clear when-not-to-use guidance, though it does not state the positive trigger condition (e.g., 'use this when you need portfolio-level strategies across campaigns') or any prerequisites.

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