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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the description's 'Read-only' adds nothing. It does add useful behavioral context about what the verdict contains (per-block scope, fees included, sample size, verification record), but omits anything on auth, rate limits, or staleness of the published verdict.

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, followed by a usage directive and a compact enumeration of returned content. The middle sentence is dense with parenthetical asides but every clause conveys payload information, so it earns its length without much 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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is largely redundant but harmless. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and a single well-documented parameter, the description gives an agent everything needed to call it correctly; only the lack of alternative-tool routing keeps it from a 5.

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, and the schema already documents it fully (pattern, example 'bb-squeeze-long', pointer to list_strategies) at 100% coverage. The description adds no further semantics, so the 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 and resource ('Get the published verdict for one strategy') and enumerates the payload contents (tone, reasons, metrics, measurement date, sample size, fees, verification record). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_coin_strategy_stats and get_forward_verification_records, which surface raw stats versus a synthesized verdict.

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 trigger condition for invoking the tool. It does not name exclusions or the alternative sibling to use when a verdict isn't needed, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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