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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a critical non-obvious behavior: the strategy is not trusted and enters CANDIDATE state. It does not mention persistence, permissions, or response shape, but the most important lifecycle fact is clearly stated.

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 and front-loaded. The first sentence gives purpose, and the IMPORTANT sentence highlights the key behavioral caveat immediately. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Core purpose and the critical candidate-state behavior are present, and an output schema exists to cover return values. However, given the 9-parameter schema and 0% parameter coverage, more guidance on fields and the recommended verification follow-up would make it complete.

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 description provides almost no parameter-level meaning. Only the phrase 'from problem-solving experience' loosely hints at experience_ids; the required procedure, description, and optional fields like task_structure_id remain unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb ('Propose') and resource ('candidate strategy') derived from 'problem-solving experience'. The explicit caveat that the strategy is never made TRUSTED and enters CANDIDATE state clearly distinguishes it from verify_strategy and get_strategy.

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 gives clear context: use this tool to create a candidate that 'requires objective verification', implying verify_strategy as the follow-up. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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