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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses that it reads STORED state rather than the described intent, that warnings are non-blocking judgements distinct from hard faults, that it does not itself spend allowance, and the payment/auth model (0.005 USDC via x402 or API key). It also signals the response contains `warnings` versus setup faults.

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?

Front-loaded with the verification checklist and the critical timing rule, and the bracketed access note is genuinely load-bearing given the x402 payment model. The opening sentence is dense and long, but no sentence is filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description partially compensates by explaining the warnings-vs-faults distinction, which is the key return-value nuance for this tool. It stops short of describing the overall result shape (e.g., a pass/fail structure), leaving a small gap for an agent interpreting the response.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('The strategy's UUID'), so the schema already does the work. The description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance beyond what the schema states; baseline 3 applies when coverage is high.

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 (check a saved strategy) and enumerates exactly what is verified: signal names/parameter keys, composing roles, per-signal timeframe, and strategy timeframe. This is clearly distinct from siblings like validate_signal_params (single signal) and evaluate_strategy (performance evaluation).

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, actionable placement in the workflow: 'after saving and BEFORE backtesting', backed by the concrete cost rationale that a backtest spends allowance on submission regardless of outcome. It does not name alternative siblings (validate_signal_params, evaluate_strategy) or state when this check is unnecessary.

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