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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this well by stating the agent learns WHAT to execute but never HOW the engine induces, verifies, or ranks knowledge, and explicitly lists absent trust signals, audit, tenants, and traces. This sets clear expectations 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 extremely compact: one sentence states the purpose and result contents, and a second labeled sentence discloses the behavioral boundary. No filler or redundant repetition, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter retrieval tool with an output schema present, the description adequately covers result contents and a key limitation. It is slightly incomplete because it omits tool-selection guidance and any provenance or format details for strategy_id, but these are minor for such a simple operation.

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% and the tool description adds no meaning to strategy_id beyond the parameter name and title. It does not clarify where a strategy_id comes from, whether it is a generated UUID or a human-readable key, or how to obtain a valid value.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve a usable strategy') and enumerates what the result contains: steps, when to use/not, and evidence summary. This makes it clearly a read operation distinct from propose/verify siblings, though it does not explicitly address the identical-looking cognitive.get_strategy sibling.

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 guidance on when to call this tool instead of alternatives like cognitive.get_guidance, cognitive.propose_strategy, or cognitive.verify_strategy. The phrase 'when to use, when not' describes content inside the returned strategy, not the conditions for selecting this tool.

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