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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the description only needs to add what they cannot. It does: content is 'worded exactly as on its strategy page', it is educational rather than investment advice, and it enumerates what is deliberately absent (signals, prices, performance), which sets expectations a caller cannot get from the schema alone.

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?

Front-loaded with the no-id case first, then the with-id case, then the exclusions, so the most common path is read first. It is a dense single paragraph with no filler sentences, though the detail list is long enough that a caller must read carefully to the end.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of describing returns, and it does: the list view's fields (style, holding period, entry/stop/exit) and the detail view's fields (rules, parameters, data needs, terms, variant differences, strengths, weaknesses, suitability, sources). An agent knows what it gets in both modes.

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 coverage is 100% and both enums are self-describing, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds real meaning by explaining the semantic consequence of the id parameter (omit to list all, supply to get one system's full written rules) and by naming the four preset families the enum values cover, which the schema does not.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource and splits the behavior cleanly by input: listing eleven preset systems (with their style, holding period, entry/stop/exit one-liners) when no id is given, versus one system's exact written rules when an id is supplied. That distinction separates it at a glance from the sibling calculate_* and lookup_glossary_term tools.

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 no-id vs with-id branches tell the agent exactly which form to call for a list versus a deep dive, and 'Rules only: no signals, no prices, no performance figures' explicitly rules out nearby intents that a sibling calculator would serve. It stops short of naming an alternative tool to use instead, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.

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