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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world. The description adds context the annotations cannot: results are hypothetical/paper-only, never advice, and it enumerates the row contents (risk, benchmark, paper/back-test windows, holdings, signal pill, next dates, second-source rebuild agreement). It does not mention pagination or size limits, so not a 5.

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?

Purpose and ordering are front-loaded and every clause carries information (row fields, caveats, next-step tools). The single dense sentence enumerating row fields is long but earns its place given there is no output schema; minor cost is density over scannability.

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 listing what each row contains and adding the hypothetical/paper disclaimer. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it says nothing about result volume or pagination behavior for a potentially long strategy list.

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 schema already documents the group field with its allowed values (core, countries, 2x-shelf, balanced, income). The description only restates 'filter by group'; the strategy-type words in the description are not group values, so this adds no real syntax beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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: listing ETFIQ Strategy Lab strategies, each 'a written rule over ETFs', with defined ordering ('ranked by paper return since the paper start'). It clearly differentiates itself from the slug-based siblings strategy_signals and strategy_record.

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 explicit sequencing ('Call first, then strategy_signals or strategy_record with a slug') and the optional narrowing condition ('Filter by group'). An agent knows exactly when to use this vs the two follow-on tools and what to pass next.

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