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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds nothing about permissions, behavior for an unknown strategy_id, or cost/latency of aggregating history and delegations. The only implicit signal is that the response is a composite of several sub-resources.

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 compact fragment list with the resource front-loaded and zero filler. It is telegraphic rather than wasteful, though the comma-separated noun phrases demand a little parsing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described and the field list is a reasonable preview. Still missing for a 1-required-param tool: how to obtain strategy_id and what happens when the id is unknown or the caller lacks visibility into the strategy's gates.

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?

The single parameter strategy_id has 0% schema description coverage and the description never states its format or provenance (address, hash, or id from register_strategy/list_strategies). With no enum and no explanation, the agent cannot reliably construct a valid 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?

Names the resource (strategy) and enumerates the detail payload it returns (creator, status/history, listing gates, terms, delegations, commitment), which is enough to tell it apart from list_strategies. There is no explicit verb, but "detail" plus the sibling set makes the read-one intent 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?

No statement of when to call this instead of list_strategies, get_prior_history, or get_performance, and no prerequisites such as needing a strategy that was already registered. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the per-strategy lookup.

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