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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by specifying the shape of the returned content (plain-English rule, long trigger, short trigger, suitable market), which is the kind of behavioral detail an agent needs and that annotations cannot express.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the output type and then lists the exact fields returned. Nothing is wasted and no sentence is padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return fields, and the one required parameter is fully covered by the schema. Safety semantics come from annotations. The only missing piece is explicit sibling routing, which the schema partially supplies.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema, including that it accepts an id, name or badge and points at list_strategies. Per the rubric, that sets the baseline at 3; the prose adds no format or resolution detail beyond the schema.

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 (explain) and resource (one ALK strategy), and even enumerates what the explanation contains: rule, long trigger, short trigger, market. That makes it recognizable as a per-strategy detail view rather than a listing. It never names the sibling it is distinguished from (list_strategies), 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?

The phrase 'for one ALK strategy' implies a single-strategy lookup, which conveys usage indirectly. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-to-use-an-alternative statement in the description; the only routing hint ('see list_strategies') lives in the schema, not the prose.

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