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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value by disclosing the return contents and, notably, the clamping behavior when a requested range exceeds what a param can affect, plus the zero-cost guarantee. It does not explain what happens to requests exceeding maxCombinations, leaving one behavioral gap.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the core action, then the three outputs, closing with the cost reassurance. No filler and nothing buried.

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 readOnly annotations present and no output schema, the description sensibly describes the return payload itself. It is nearly complete for a preview tool, missing only the interaction between pointsPerParam and maxCombinations and any reference to the caller's strategy/portfolio context.

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 only 33%: spec points at get_strategy_spec_rules, but pointsPerParam and maxCombinations have no schema descriptions and no explanation here either. The description gestures at the concepts ('values per param', 'total combinations') without clarifying their semantics, defaults, bounds, or how maxCombinations truncates the sweep — a real gap for a tool whose whole purpose is predicting combination counts.

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?

Specific verb (show/preview) and resource (a parameter sweep), with an explicit enumeration of what is returned: values per param, total combinations, and clamped ranges. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the executing sibling optimize_strategy via 'before spending anything on it', but never names that alternative, so it falls short of a clean 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?

'before spending anything on it' and 'Costs nothing' make the use case clear: dry-run this prior to committing to an actual sweep. No explicit when-not or named alternative (e.g. optimize_strategy) is given, so an agent must infer the routing from the cost framing.

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