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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, so the description correctly doesn't restate them. Instead it adds non-obvious context: the evidence is SIMULATED with a per-$10-copy basis, and callers need POLYRANK_API_KEY. It doesn't say whether templates are versioned or how large the list might be, which keeps it off a 5.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by the actionable next step — no filler. The 'SIMULATED, per $10 copied' phrase is compressed to the point of mild opacity, but it is the only dense spot.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, this covers what an agent needs: what the items are, what fields matter (`spec`, id), how the evidence is generated, the caveats, and the auth requirement. Missing only return-shape or volume details, which are minor here.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and nothing needs compensating in the description. The prose does not have to explain any argument semantics.

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 names the specific verb-resource: 'The Strategy Lab's templates' returned as 'editable strategy specs' with as-of evidence and caveats. The contrast with the sibling list tool is implicit but strong — these are lab strategy templates, not ranking templates or saved strategies — and the payload contents (spec, evidence, caveats) are named so an agent knows what it will receive.

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?

It states the downstream action clearly — copy the `spec` or its id into polyrank_create_strategy / polyrank_run_backtest — which is genuine when-to-use guidance. It stops short of explicit exclusions, e.g. it never says to use polyrank_list_ranking_templates instead for ranking-side templates, leaving that inference to the agent.

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