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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral load, and it does disclose one useful trait: the returned text is identical to a known documentation page, implying static reference content rather than live state. It does not explicitly state that the call is read-only or side-effect free, though the nature of the resource makes that inferable.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the resource is named first. It is a sentence fragment rather than a full statement of action, but that does not cost the reader anything.

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?

For a zero-parameter documentation fetch with an output schema, little needs explaining, and the description says what the content is. It still leaves an agent guessing what a 'strategy contract' governs and why it would matter before running a backtest, which is the main omission.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter meaning the description needs to supply. No over- or under-specification of inputs exists to penalize.

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 identifies a specific resource — the strategy contract and sandbox rules — and pins it to a known artifact ('the same text as on /docs-contract'), so an agent knows it returns documentation text rather than data. The verb is only implied by the name, and 'strategy contract' is left undefined, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus the sibling documentation tool get_schema, nor any statement of prerequisites or when it is unnecessary. The only contextual cue is the equivalence to the web page at /docs-contract, which describes content, not usage.

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