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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds non-obvious behavior: the replace-not-patch semantics of the downstream edit, and the ``not_expressible`` field warning that some strategies cannot be round-tripped without data loss. That lossy-round-trip caveat is exactly the kind of consequence an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with what is returned, then when to call it, then the edge case; no filler sentences. Minor cost: ``not_expressible`` appears as a bare field name before the reader knows the return shape, and the em-dash clauses are dense.

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 carries the return-value burden and does it reasonably: definition vs. holdings, plus the ``not_expressible`` list. It stops short of describing the shape of the returned arguments, but an agent has enough to decide and call correctly.

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 0% — strategy_id has no description anywhere — and the description never mentions the parameter, its format, or where to obtain a valid id (e.g. from list_portfolios). For a single required parameter this is a real gap, not a compensated one.

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 precisely what is returned: the arguments that rebuild a strategy — screen, tilts, caps, items — and explicitly contrasts it with the weights pane (describe_portfolio_weights), so an agent can separate definition from holdings. The verb 'read' lives only in the title, but the content is specific enough to identify the resource unambiguously.

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?

Gives an explicit call condition ('Call it before editing a strategy') with the reason: builders replace rather than patch, so an edit must restate every argument. It also covers the read-vs-write permission split ('Catalogue strategies can be read too; only rewriting requires ownership'), which tells the agent when the call will succeed and when it will not.

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