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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does convey that this is a snapshot/retrieval operation and lists the returned content, which implies read-only behavior. However, it does not disclose potential caveats such as data freshness, behavior on invalid slugs, or whether the returned code is guaranteed to run in the current environment.

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 compact and front-loaded: it opens with the action and resource, lists the key return contents, and ends with the practical slug-lookup instruction. Every sentence contributes value without redundancy.

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 one-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly complete: it tells the agent what the tool returns, what the input should be, and how to obtain that input via list_strategies. A small gap is the absence of any note about error cases or response format, but the complexity is low enough that the missing detail is not critical.

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?

The schema already documents the sole parameter 'slug' with 100% coverage, including the note that it comes from list_strategies. The description reinforces that connection but adds no new format constraints, examples, or semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 ('取得') and resource ('FinLab 策略庫中單一策略的完整快照'), and enumerates exactly what is returned: strategy description, backtest performance, benchmark comparison, and executable finlab Python code. It clearly differentiates from list_strategies by focusing on a single strategy's full snapshot.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to use list_strategies first to obtain the slug, creating a clear usage sequence and routing to the relevant sibling tool. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare alternatives beyond that, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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