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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that all series are indexed to 100 at inception, that paper capital is arbitrary, and that all figures are simulated paper trading. It also notes the limit of 20 most recent orders, adding useful behavioral context beyond the obvious summary functionality.

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?

The description is three sentences, each serving a purpose: listing content, clarifying the indexing/normalization, and emphasizing the simulated nature. There is no redundancy, and the most important information (what the tool summarizes) is front-loaded.

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, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the key content (returns, drawdown, live days, orders) and important caveats (simulated, indexed). It could be marginally improved by specifying units or return format, but the provided details are sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's scope.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the schema is trivially complete. No additional parameter meaning is required.

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 clearly states the tool provides a summary of every strategy sleeve, listing specific metrics (returns, drawdown, live days, orders). Although it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'list', the resource and scope are unambiguous, distinguishing it from sibling tools like sleeve_record which likely targets a single sleeve.

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 description explains what the tool returns but provides no guidance on when to choose this over siblings. There is no explicit 'use this when...' statement, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusions. The only contextual hint is 'fleet_overview' implying a fleet-wide scope, but this is inferred rather than stated.

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