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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHit, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: APY values are decimal fractions (with concrete examples) and the narrower-range-higher-APY tradeoff with rebalancing cost/risk. This enriches the agent's understanding of the returned data.

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?

Three sentences, eachearning its place: the first identifies the tool and its main content, the second gives workflow guidance, and the third clarifies a critical numeric format detail. No fluff, and key information is front-loaded.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return structure is already specified, and annotations cover safety. The description completes the picture with strategy-detail content, sibling routing for discovery, and an essential APY format clarification. There is nothing missing that would prevent correct invocation.

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% for both parameters, including chain_id descriptions and defaults, so the schema already documents parameters thoroughly. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond referencing strategy_id and chain context; per rubric, 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Get full detail') and resource ('LP strategy by ID'), and clearly distinguishes itself from list-type tools by emphasizing detail for a single strategy. It also names the sibling read_strategy_list as the discovery tool, making its scope unambiguous.

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?

It states exactly when to use this tool (to get full detail of a specific LP strategy by ID) and explicitly directs the agent to read_strategy_list for discovering strategy IDs, which is a clear alternative. This provides actionable routing without requiring inference.

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