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

With no annotations to carry safety or side-effect information, the description takes on the full burden and does so well. It discloses a key filtering behavior (unverified/suspended strategies are not returned as trusted guidance), what the response includes (calibrated uncertainty, applicability conditions, negative transfer warnings), and the failure contract (structured error object, never a bare exception). This is strong behavioral disclosure beyond the schema.

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 tightly structured: a one-line summary, a clarifying negative guarantee, a sentence on output characteristics, and a compact Args/Returns breakdown. Every sentence contributes information, and the most important scoping statement is front-loaded before parameter details.

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 tool with five parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs to call it correctly: what it does, what it filters out, what each parameter means, what the return looks like, and what failure looks like. Nothing essential appears to be missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for all five parameters. The Args section defines each one meaningfully: task_structure_id is a UUID, goal includes metric targets, available_capabilities means capabilities supported by the caller, and model_family gives examples. This adds real semantic value beyond the bare schema property names and types.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Retrieve applicable validated strategies for a task." It further distinguishes itself from siblings like get_strategy by emphasizing 'applicable validated strategies' and explicitly excluding unverified or suspended ones. This is unambiguous and lets an agent differentiate it immediately.

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 use when an agent needs validated strategies for a given task, and the parameters hint at personalization via capabilities, environment, and model family. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over sibling tools such as get_strategy or propose_strategy, nor does it provide exclusion conditions. Usage context is clear but alternatives are not addressed.

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