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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature ('Read-only') and describes the shape of returned data well, but says nothing about permissions/auth requirements, pagination, or limits on the 'recent daily decisions' window.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler; the resource and its scope are front-loaded, followed by the identification options and read-only note. Every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (asset selection, adopting tokens, per-day weights, convictions, memo receipts). This is nearly complete for a read tool; only auth/limits and the definition of 'recent' are omitted.

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 100% and there is a single parameter, so the schema already documents the preset-id/64-hex-key input. The description restates the same accepted values (classic, growth, hard-money, income) without adding format or validation detail beyond the schema, warranting the baseline 3.

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 (get) and resource (one vault strategy) and explicitly scopes it as the singular in-depth view, contrasting with the plural sibling get_strategies. The returned content is enumerated (signed asset selection, adopting tokens, daily decisions with weights/convictions/memo receipts), so an agent can tell exactly what this returns.

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 phrase 'One vault strategy in depth' implies this is the single-strategy detail tool versus the list-oriented get_strategies, and it explains how to identify the target (preset id or 64-hex key). However, it never explicitly states when to choose this over get_strategies or any exclusions, leaving usage to inference.

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