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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, whether the report is computed on demand or cached, or what happens for missing/invalid strategy IDs. It merely lists report content without describing execution behavior.

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 a single compact, front-loaded phrase with no filler or redundant schema repetition. The colon-delimited list is efficient, though slightly telegraphic and reliant on abbreviations like 'CI'.

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?

Despite having an output schema and only one parameter, the description omits essential context: what 'baseline vs assisted' refers to, how the report is scoped to a strategy, and when this tool is the right choice over its siblings. An agent could guess its purpose but would lack enough grounding to invoke it confidently.

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?

The only parameter, strategy_id, has no schema description and is never mentioned in the tool description, so schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain that the ID selects which strategy's evidence dossier is returned, leaving the agent without sufficient guidance for correct invocation.

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 identifies a specific resource ('Evidence dossier') and enumerates its contents (baseline vs assisted, distribution, CI, failures, last eval), making the tool's function reasonably clear. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'retrieves' or 'generates', and it does not explicitly differentiate this report from the sibling cognitive_get_strategy tool.

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 statement about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cognitive_get_strategy, cognitive_get_experiment, or cognitive_get_guidance. The content list implies an evaluative/reporting context, but the routing decision is left entirely to inference.

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