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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description reinforces this by stating 'nothing is changed by this call' and emphasizes it is historical data only. It adds context about the comparison and ranking logic, which goes beyond the 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?

The description is well-structured, starting with the core purpose, then details and workflow. It is slightly verbose with some repetition (e.g., 'never advice' mentioned twice), but overall each sentence adds value and the tool's behavior is clearly communicated.

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?

Given the availability of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, and behavioral transparency. It lacks detail on parameters, but that is already captured in parameter semantics scoring. The tool's role in the workflow is clearly explained, making it complete enough for agent usage.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. However, it only implicitly mentions 'strategy_id' and 'wallet_address' in the context of 'one of YOUR strategies' but does not explain 'caller_id' or provide specific parameter semantics. The description fails to add sufficient meaning beyond the schema.

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 tool's purpose: providing historical parameter observations by comparing a strategy's outcomes against other strategies with different parameter values, ranked by P&L. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that actually modify strategies, clarifying it only returns data, not advice.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool (for reviewing parameter performance) and when not to (it's not advice; acting on observations requires using strategy tools). It outlines the workflow (ORIENT -> DECIDE) and mentions alternatives (strategy tools).

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