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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the closing 'Read-only' is mild restatement. The description still adds real context beyond the annotations: that metrics arrive in separate blocks each with its own scope, that fees are included in the measurement, and that a verification record plus reproduction instructions are returned.

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 is front-loaded in the opening clause, and the two short follow-on sentences (usage trigger, read-only) each carry weight. The middle enumeration is dense but every item is a distinct part of the verdict; minor redundancy with the output schema is the only waste.

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 an output schema present, the return-value enumeration is technically more than required, but the note that each metric block carries its own scope is a genuinely useful caveat an agent could otherwise miss. Usage trigger and read-only safety profile are covered; the only gap is guidance on the no_definition case, where the tool likely yields no metrics.

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?

Single parameter with 100% schema coverage and a well-formed schema description including a format hint ('bb-squeeze-long') and a pointer to list_strategies. The description adds nothing about strategy_id beyond what the schema already states, which is the baseline-3 case.

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?

Specific verb ('Get') and tightly scoped resource ('the published verdict for one strategy'), backed by an enumeration of what the verdict contains (tone, reasons, re-measured metrics, sample size, fees, verification record). It is clearly not a generic stats fetch, but it never names the sibling tools (get_coin_strategy_stats, get_forward_verification_records) to draw the boundary 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?

'Use before acting on any backtest number' gives a concrete decision point for invoking the tool, which is stronger than implied usage. It stops short of naming an alternative or stating when not to use it (e.g. when the strategy is unpublished or no_definition), so it falls just short of a 5.

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