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

The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by naming the returned fields and clarifying that either identifier is accepted. It still omits edge-case behavior such as what happens if neither ID is supplied or if both are supplied, but the annotations cover the main safety profile.

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 description is two tight sentences. The purpose and returned fields are front-loaded, and the identifier flexibility is stated without unnecessary repetition.

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 simple read-only getter with no output schema, the description does enough: it names the entity, lists the returned fields, and explains the two accepted ID forms. It could be stronger by covering not-found behavior or ID precedence, but the annotations and schema cover most remaining needs.

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 the schema already defines strategyId and aiStrategyId. The description adds meaning by stating that either identifier is accepted, which is not fully expressed by the two optional schema properties alone. It does not explain precedence or selection rules when both are provided.

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 states a specific verb and resource: returns full details for a single strategy. It also lists the key fields returned, which makes the scope clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as list_strategies or get_strategy_visuals, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

The description implies usage by saying it returns a single strategy and accepts either strategyId or aiStrategyId. However, it does not say when to use this tool rather than list_strategies, get_strategy_visuals, or update_strategy, nor does it explain how to choose between the two ID parameters.

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