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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does disclose meaningful behavior: per-evaluation market snapshots, signal decisions, order intents, and a success/error flag. It leaves out pagination behavior, ordering guarantees, and default limit, but the read-only nature is strongly implied by 'decision log'.

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 return contents and the usage triggers lead the description, and the sentence order is sensible. There is mild redundancy between 'bar-by-bar decision log for a strategy' and 'every time the agent checked signals for this strategy', but nothing wasteful.

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 or annotations exist, so the description does the work of explaining the return payload at a useful level of detail. The remaining gap is the pagination/ordering contract for limit and offset, which an agent needs to page through a potentially long log.

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% across three parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. strategy_id is only obliquely referenced ('for a strategy'), and limit/offset are never mentioned, leaving pagination semantics entirely undocumented.

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 resource and scope: a bar-by-bar decision log of every signal check for a given strategy. The phrasing 'every time the agent checked signals' clearly separates it from sibling tools that *run* evaluations (evaluate_strategy, evaluate_signal) or return trades (get_trades_for_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?

Provides four concrete user-intent triggers ('what did the agent decide', 'why did it not trade', evaluation history, last check time) that map directly to invocation. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-use case (e.g. 'use evaluate_strategy to run a new evaluation').

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