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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations by disclosing the timeframe default (4h when never set), archived-strategy behavior (active false), cross-account behavior (reads as not found), and auth requirements. These are exactly the edge cases an agent cannot infer from annotations.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the differentiator, then usage routing, then id provenance and edge cases. No filler and every clause carries information.

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 values need not be enumerated, yet the description still covers the notable field behaviors and negative results (archived, other account). Nothing needed to call this single-param read correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds origin and lifecycle context the schema lacks: the id comes from create_strategy and is the same identifier consumed by run_backtest, update_strategy and delete_strategy. It does not add format or validation detail, which the schema already carries.

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 ('returns one of your saved strategies') and immediately differentiates itself from the sibling get_my_strategies by naming the two fields it adds. An agent can tell exactly which tool to pick without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('check a strategy before run_backtest or update_strategy') and an explicit alternative with its condition ('to browse them all, use get_my_strategies'). Prerequisites (API key) are also stated.

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