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

With destructiveHint=true already declared, the description does real work by scoping the destruction: forward accrual stops, but history is preserved and the record stays public, merely marked retired. That is exactly the kind of context annotations can't express. It does not address reversibility (can a retired record be re-activated?) or that idempotentHint=false means a second call will likely fail.

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?

A single well-formed sentence, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the three consequences. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

For a one-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essential question an agent will have -- what does retiring actually change -- and does so precisely. The remaining gap is failure/reversal semantics for a non-idempotent destructive call, which would be nice but is not blocking.

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% and the single record_id field has no schema-level explanation, so the description is the only source. It implies the identifier must refer to "one of your verified strategy records," which is useful, but adds no format, source, or lookup guidance beyond that.

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?

"Retire one of your verified strategy records" gives a specific verb (retire) plus a specific resource type (verified strategy record), and the effects clause (stops accruing, keeps history, stays public) further fixes what "retire" means. It never names a sibling (e.g., publish_strategy/register_strategy/fork_strategy), so the differentiation from related tools is left to the agent.

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?

"one of your verified strategy records" supplies a clear precondition for use (must be yours and verified) and the effect description implies the intent (stop tracking without deleting). There are no explicit exclusions or pointers to alternatives, so the agent must infer that this is not the way to delete or unpublish a strategy.

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