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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the read can target either a current or a historical generation and names the payload shape, which is useful but thin given an output schema already exists to document the return value.

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 one-line purpose followed by a compact Args block; every sentence maps to either routing or a parameter and there is no filler.

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 2-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers what the tool returns, both parameters, and how to source them. The only gap is the format/validation of the `generation` value and a stray unbalanced markdown marker, both minor.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden and does so: strategy_id is identified as a Strategy UUID sourced from list_strategies, and generation as an optional GCS generation for an older save sourced from list_strategy_versions. It doesn't spell out the accepted format of a GCS generation string, which keeps it off a 5.

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 + resource + scope: 'Read one strategy's current or historical generation', with the returned content named (markdown, settings, links). It also implicitly separates itself from the list_* siblings by naming list_strategies and list_strategy_versions as the sources of IDs rather than as alternatives for reading content.

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 clearly states the condition that selects the `generation` path ('for an older save') and points to list_strategy_versions as the way to obtain it, which is real routing guidance. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool (e.g., versus list_strategies for bulk listing), so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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