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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed world), so the bar is lower. The description adds real context beyond that: the data is bounded to past bars of one tested week, defaults to the newest test, and is explicitly 'a description, never a forecast and never advice'. This scope and framing are genuinely useful and not in the annotations.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, but the run-on phrasing ('the move (ready to in a trade, and so on)') and a list-heavy middle sentence make it dense and slightly awkward. It conveys the information without much waste, but it is not tightly structured.

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 must convey what is returned, and it does so thoroughly, including the win/loss-entry averages per watched item. A read-only tool with full annotation coverage does not need more, though the return-value enumeration could be more crisply organized.

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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the schema (100% coverage) with enums and defaults. The description adds nothing beyond that—the market default is already stated in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly identifies the resource: the steps the trader's last tested strategy took on one market, enumerating its returned fields (time, move, conditions, trade, watched-item values). This is specific enough to distinguish it from list-style siblings like strategies or quote-style siblings like strategy_quote. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling 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?

It gives concrete usage contexts with example questions ('what was the RSI when it bought', 'why did it enter there', 'what do the winners have in common'), which tells the agent when to reach for it. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative tool, so it does not reach a 5.

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