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

Annotations already establish readOnly, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing what the payload contains (section identifiers, Markdown body, current revision), which goes beyond 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?

A single front-loaded sentence that names the action, the resource, and the returned content with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not strictly required, yet the description still summarizes the payload. For a simple one-param read tool the definition is essentially complete, with only workflow alternatives left unstated.

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?

Only one parameter (strategy_id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no format, pattern, or lookup detail beyond what the schema already provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (reads) and resource (strategy) and enumerates what is returned: section identifiers, Markdown, and current revision. It implicitly separates itself from edit_strategy/create_strategy by being the read side, though it never names a 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?

"for subsequent edits" signals the intended workflow (fetch before modifying), which is useful context. However, it gives no explicit when-not or named alternative, leaving the agent to infer the read-before-edit pattern.

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