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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the description doesn't need to re-litigate safety. It instead adds non-obvious context: the result is scoped to 'your' strategies and requires POLYRANK_API_KEY, which the annotations don't say.

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 and a colon-led field list; what is returned and what it costs (auth) are front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition of the name.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields at a high level and the auth prerequisite. It stops short of covering failure modes (not found, not owned) for a single-param fetch, which is a small remaining gap.

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 0%, so the schema only says 'id' is a uuid string with no meaning. The description supplies the meaning: it identifies one of the caller's own strategies and is the handle edited by update_strategy, implying ids come from the list endpoint.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: fetch 'one of your strategies by id', and enumerates what comes back (name, state, full strategy spec with wallet source, market, entry, sizing, exit). That distinguishes it from the batch sibling polyrank_list_strategies without naming it explicitly.

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?

Routes the mutation case to polyrank_update_strategy, which is useful, but gives no guidance on when to fetch a single strategy versus calling polyrank_list_strategies, and no mention of what happens if the id is unknown or belongs to another account.

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