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

The description discloses real behavioral traits beyond the annotations: 'Public, no auth', the fact that a strategy's spec/thresholds are never shown, and the embargo logic for signals (live for owner and buyers, otherwise only pre-embargo entries with the unlock door). That is substantial disclosure. It does not, however, explain why readOnlyHint is false for what reads like a listing tool, leaving a side-effect question open.

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 what the board contains, then the include_signals behavior, then auth/disclaimer. Dense but nearly every clause carries information. It is a single run-on sentence chain, which makes it slightly harder to scan, but nothing is padded.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields and the return-affecting modes (embargo behavior, spec never shown). Auth status is stated. For a two-parameter, zero-required listing tool, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning: it enumerates the statuses in prose and explains the embargo/ownership semantics of include_signals in far more depth than the schema's one-line note. Slight deduction because the prose status list ('queued · trial · graduated · probation · tossed') omits 'retired', which the schema enum does contain.

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 names a specific resource (live strategy arms in Rokha's desk lab) and enumerates the payload precisely: id, strategy id, status, hypothesis, Signet paper ledger, rig, graded record and grade time. It is clearly a listing/read of desk-lab strategy arms, distinct from desk_signals or desk_strategy_submit. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with any sibling, which keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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?

There is no explicit 'use this when' or 'use X instead' guidance; the closest thing is the note that include_signals adds planned buys/sells. 'Market data, not advice' is a disclaimer, not a usage rule. The agent must infer the tool's place in the workflow from the field list alone.

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