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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds useful behavior beyond that — it is free (cost: free), scoped to live strategies only, and discloses what data is produced. It does not explain how the '区间' (interval) is determined or whether results are paginated/sampled.

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?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with a category tag and the core action, with the returned metrics listed after the colon. Heavy markdown bolding is decorative but the content is dense and free of filler.

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 usefully enumerates the return payload, which covers the main gap. However, '区间收益' implies a time window while the schema has no range parameter, leaving how the interval is set unexplained — a real ambiguity for a performance tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents '实盘策略 ID (required)'; the description adds provenance ('ID 取自 qd_strategies_trading'), which is meaning beyond the schema. That reference is a bare identifier rather than a sibling tool name, which slightly limits its usefulness.

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+resource: query performance of a live/real-money strategy, at strategy level, keyed by live strategy ID, and enumerates the returned metrics (equity curve, latest equity, interval return and points). This clearly separates it from the position/trade-level siblings (platform_strategy_positions, platform_strategy_trades), though it does not name them explicitly.

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 【持仓与执行】 tag and the note that the ID comes from `qd_strategies_trading` imply the context in which to use it, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative for related queries. An agent can infer usage but must reason about it.

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