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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description's 'Read-only' merely restates it. It does add genuinely useful interpretive context beyond annotations: the headline metrics are the original backtest and not re-measured, pointing the agent at each row's headline_scope before comparing numbers.

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 core action and scope, then packed with the field enumeration and the provenance caveat in a single dense sentence. Slightly long but every clause carries information; the trailing 'Read-only' is the only redundant fragment.

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 description need not explain return shape, yet it usefully previews the row contents and flags the headline_scope caveat. Combined with annotations and a fully covered parameter, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly; only the lack of sibling routing leaves a small gap.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the enum values are documented in the schema, so the description's 'Optional filter by status' adds no syntax or semantics beyond what is already structured. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (list) and resource (strategies published by PRUVIQ), and enumerates the fields returned including research status, verdict, headline metrics and record URL. Against get_* siblings it is clear this is the bulk-listing tool rather than a single-record fetch.

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?

Usage is implied: it lists everything and offers an optional status filter, which contrasts naturally with the get_* siblings that fetch one record. However, no alternative is named and no when-not guidance is given, so the agent must infer the routing.

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