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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds meaningful behavioral context by stating that the agent learns WHAT to execute but not HOW the engine induces, verifies, or ranks knowledge, and explicitly notes the absence of trust signals, audit, tenants, and traces. This is useful limitation disclosure beyond a simple 'retrieve' statement.

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 short and front-loaded: the main purpose and expected output contents appear first. The disclosure sentence adds important behavioral context without excessive length, though the phrase 'no trust signals, audit, tenants, traces' is slightly cryptic and could be clearer.

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 single-parameter retrieval tool with an output schema, the description is mostly adequate: it states what is returned and one major limitation. It is missing guidance on when to call this tool instead of getting guidance or proposing a strategy, and it does not explain where strategy_id comes from or how to validate 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for explaining strategy_id, but it does not mention the parameter at all. The parameter name and title are self-explanatory to some degree, but the description adds no guidance on what constitutes a valid strategy_id or how to obtain one.

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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('a usable strategy') and enumerates the content of the returned strategy: steps, when to use, when not, evidence summary. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like propose_strategy or verify_strategy because it is about obtaining an existing strategy, not creating or validating one.

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 usage when the agent needs an existing strategy to execute, and the sibling names suggest a contrast with propose_strategy and verify_strategy. However, it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it give exclusion conditions. The 'when to use, when not' phrase is part of the strategy content, not tool-selection guidance.

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