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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds nothing — no behavior on missing/invalid IDs, no auth requirements, and no indication of return contents, which matters since there is no output schema.

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 clauses with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The appended raw HTTP path is mildly redundant but harmless and may aid mapping to the API.

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 simple single-parameter getter with safety annotations, the description covers the core intent. However, with no output schema and 0% parameter documentation, it leaves the agent without any notion of what a successful response contains.

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 0% and the single 'id' parameter is undocumented. The phrase 'by ID' merely restates that the resource is identified, giving no format, source, or validation hints for the ID value.

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 states a specific verb and resource: fetch a code strategy by its ID. It distinguishes the single-item fetch from list-style siblings like get_strategy_code and get_strategy_code_total only implicitly, but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this over siblings such as get_strategy_code (list) or get_public_code_strategy, and no prerequisites or error conditions are mentioned. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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