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

Annotations only cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive); the description goes well beyond by disclosing the return payload (summary, caveats, current stocks, new-this-update flags, per-stock moves, dropped names, stats) and the hard constraint that live and backtest figures must never be combined. It also frames the resource as a tracked model portfolio, not advice, which materially shapes how the agent presents results.

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 trigger condition, then the return contents, then the editorial caveat, then the routing sentence. It is somewhat dense and long, but every sentence carries distinct information; no obvious padding.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so item by item (summary, caveats, holdings with new/move flags, dropped names, separated live vs backtest stats). An agent has everything needed to call it and to describe the result accurately.

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 slug parameter is fully documented there, including examples. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the 3 baseline 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?

The description names a specific verb+resource (get one Quantral strategy) and enumerates the four question types it answers: holdings, basis, performance, and latest-change. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_strategy_changes, so an agent can route without opening either 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?

It gives an explicit trigger ('when the user asks about one Quantral strategy') and an explicit alternative with its selection condition ('For someone already following a strategy, get_strategy_changes answers what changed since a date'). The slug's provenance from list_strategies is also implied via the schema.

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