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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value by disclosing the exact field set returned and explicitly excluding holdings, which prevents a common misuse. Minor gap: 'when available' flags optional fields but doesn't say what is omitted or what an unknown code returns.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler: the resource and scope come first, the field inventory second, and the holdings exclusion last where it is most useful as a guardrail.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so by naming nearly every field (frequency, holdings count, launch date, returns, drawdown, Sharpe/Sortino, benchmark). Combined with the explicit omission of holdings, an agent has everything it needs to call this correctly.

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 schema already gives an example code and points at list_strategies as the source. The description's inline examples (US20, IT15) merely reinforce the schema, so 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 ('Full public detail of one strategy by code') and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what it gets. The singular 'one strategy ... by code' implicitly separates it from sibling list_strategies, but never names that sibling or states the distinction outright.

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 rather than stated: 'by code' plus the schema note that codes come from list_strategies suggests a two-step flow, but the description never says when to call this versus list_strategies. The only explicit scoping is the negative one ('Does not include the holdings themselves').

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