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

Annotations already carry the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so the description's job is to add retrieval context. It does that by naming the fields returned, which matters because there is no output schema. It omits edge behavior such as what happens if both IDs or neither are supplied, or what a not-found result looks like.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the identifier constraint. No filler or duplicated title text.

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 read-only single-entity getter with complete param documentation and full safety annotations, the description covers purpose, inputs, and return content. It would be complete at 5 if it clarified the neither/both identifier case and not-found behavior.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description exceeds that by stating the two identifiers are alternatives ("either strategyId or aiStrategyId"), a constraint the schema does not express given that neither parameter is required. It still doesn't say what to do if both are passed.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Returns full details for a single strategy") and enumerates the payload (name, type, revision count, latest revision info, deployment status), so the agent knows exactly what it gets. It does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as get_strategy_visuals or set_strategy_revision, so it stops 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?

Usage is only implied: fetch a single strategy when you have its ID. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not framing, and no mention of alternatives like get_strategy_visuals for visual artifacts or update_strategy for mutation. It does add the practical routing hint that either identifier type is acceptable.

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