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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — that strategyId alone can be ambiguous on a chain and that token parameters resolve the collision — but says nothing about behavior when the lookup fails, returns multiple, or what shape the result takes.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the one conditional that matters. Nothing is repeated and no wording is wasted.

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?

This is a simple read tool with no nested objects, but there is no output schema and the description never indicates what a strategy object contains or what happens on a miss. Combined with the unexplained token format, an agent can construct the call but not fully anticipate 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?

Schema coverage is 50%: chainId and strategyId are documented, but borrowToken and depositToken are bare strings. The description compensates by defining those two as optional disambiguators used when a strategyId is not unique on a chain, which is real meaning the schema lacks. It does not, however, say whether the token values are addresses or symbols.

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?

"Get one strategy" states a verb and resource and the word "one" signals single-record retrieval as opposed to the sibling list_strategies, but it is barely more than a restatement of the title "Get strategy". It never names list_strategies explicitly or otherwise differentiates itself from the many build_/quote_ siblings.

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 only usage guidance is conditional and parameter-level: pass depositToken/borrowToken when several strategies share a strategyId on the same chain. There is no statement about when to call this rather than list_strategies, though the schema's "Strategy id from list_strategies" hint supplies an implicit workflow.

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