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

Without annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the value is a live target computed from the latest close and expressed in basis points, but it omits permissions, error cases, and how the optional params affect the result.

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?

The description is two efficient sentences with no wasted words. The unit and freshness are front-loaded, and the key semantic distinction—live target versus historical or static rule—is stated immediately.

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 and no annotations, so the description should carry more detail. It explains the unit and derivation but does not describe the return shape, how nested params influence the allocation, or what happens for an unpublished strategy.

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 both id and params are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning or syntax for the parameters, which is the baseline when the schema already 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?

The description clearly states the resource and scope: a published strategy's current rule-based allocation, expressed in basis points and based on the latest close. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as get_strategy or check_strategy.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like get_strategy, check_strategy, or backtest_strategy. The description implies it returns a live allocation, but offers no context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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