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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals a key behavior: checks every 15 minutes and executes when conditions are met, implying automated trade execution. However, it does not mention side effects (e.g., order placement), required permissions beyond API key, reversibility, or error handling, which are important for a trading tool.

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 sentences with no filler. It front-loads the primary purpose and then adds a concise behavioral detail about the heartbeat engine. Every word contributes value.

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?

For a complex tool with 14 parameters and no output schema, the description provides only basic context: setting up automation and the 15-minute check loop. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., strategy ID), how to manage or stop the strategy, or what 'executes' means in practice—gaps that matter for a trading tool.

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%, so parameter meanings are fully documented in the schema. The description summarizes some parameters (entry price, stop loss, take profit, soft conditions) but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., softConditions is already described as 'LLM-evaluated conditions').

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 ('Set up automated trading') and resource (strategy) with clear details about parameters (entry price, stop loss, take profit, soft conditions). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_thesis or add_position by mentioning the automated heartbeat engine and execution behavior.

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 when to use this tool: when you want automated trading with entry/exit conditions and periodic checks. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the context is clear enough to differentiate from manual position tools like add_position or close_position.

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