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

Annotations already declare readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description doesn't need to. It adds genuinely useful context beyond them: deprecation/migration status and what the read returns, including that the revision is intended for subsequent edits. It stops short of noting pagination or any rate/size constraints on the Markdown payload.

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 the most decision-relevant fact (deprecation and the `fetch` replacement), which is good structure. However, the three opening sentences restate the same point about compatibility and migration, so a small amount of wording could be trimmed.

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?

A one-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage needs little prose; the description supplies the deprecation caveat and a summary of returned fields. Nothing required to call it correctly is missing.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage and a pattern/limits already documented, so the schema does the parameter work. The description adds no format or semantics beyond 'strategy_id', which is the expected baseline here.

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 and resource ('Reads a strategy') plus the exact payload (section identifiers, Markdown, current revision), and explicitly frames it as a deprecated compatibility interface whose replacement is `fetch`. An agent can distinguish it from fetch, list_strategies, and get_strategy_template without opening a schema.

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 when-to-use guidance by naming the preferred alternative (`fetch`) and stating both access the same records, plus the condition under which this tool remains appropriate (existing clients during migration). Effectively tells the agent to prefer another sibling in almost all cases.

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