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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds a genuinely valuable caveat: headline metrics are the original backtest, not re-measured, and each row's headline_scope tells you the basis. That is data-provenance context the annotations cannot supply. 'Read-only' merely repeats the annotation, adding no new information.

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?

One front-loaded sentence delivers scope, per-row contents, the metric-provenance caveat, the optional filter, and the read-only characteristic, with no redundant padding. Every clause carries information an agent needs to decide whether to call it.

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 read-only list tool with an output schema, full annotation coverage, and a single fully documented optional parameter. The description covers scope, return contents, metric caveat, and filtering, so nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single status parameter already has an enum with a description, so the schema carries the full burden. The description only restates that the filter is optional by status, adding no syntax or semantics beyond the enum values. Baseline 3 applies 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 (every strategy PRUVIQ publishes) and enumerates exactly what each row carries: research status, simulator verdict, headline metrics with scope, and record URL. The 'every strategy' scope implicitly separates it from the single-entity siblings like get_strategy_verdict and get_coin_strategy_stats.

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?

'Optional filter by status' tells the agent the filter is not required, which is useful framing. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. get_strategy_verdict or get_forward_verification_records, and no stated exclusions or prerequisites, so selection guidance is only implied.

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