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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add real non-schema context: the x402 pay-per-call cost of 0.005 USDC versus free API-key auth, including that an x402-capable client auto-pays. The notable gap is that both parameters are optional yet lookup clearly requires at least one; the failure behavior when neither is supplied is undisclosed.

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?

What the tool returns and how to select a record comes first; the when-to-use rationale follows; the access/payment note is bracketed and skimmable. Every sentence carries distinct information and none restates the name or title.

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 two-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does the heavy lifting well: it lists the fields returned, explains the id/name selector, and discloses the auth/payment model. The only missing piece is the at-least-one-identifier constraint implied by zero required parameters.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in structured data. The description adds the either/or semantics ('Accepts either strategy_id or name') and precedence ('name, if the id is unknown'), but no format specifics beyond the schema's UUID note. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Fetch one saved strategy in full') and enumerates the returned content fields (entry/exit signals, asset, timeframe, status), which distinguishes it from list_strategies, get_marketplace_strategy and get_backtest. An agent can tell it retrieves stored, owned strategies rather than market-listed ones.

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 an explicit when-to-use rule: call before discussing or changing a strategy so you describe stored state rather than conversation history. It also states the id-or-name acceptance mode. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. list_strategies to resolve an unknown id, update_strategy for mutation), so a 4 rather than 5.

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