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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them — the at-least-3-trades inclusion threshold and the fact that a total distinct-strategy count is also returned — but says nothing about ordering, result limits, or return shape.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical filter is placed correctly. The trailing 'how many distinct strategies have been tested in all' phrasing is slightly clunky but still efficient.

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 and no parameters, the description carries the full burden of explaining what comes back. It names two return elements but not the fields of a 'top result' or the sort order, which an agent needs to interpret the output correctly.

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 takes zero parameters and the description does not invent any, matching the empty schema. Nothing is left ambiguous about inputs.

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 resource (the top results on Dolphin's strategy test board) plus an inclusion rule and a secondary count output, which is enough to distinguish it from test_strategy or list_live_runs. The gap is that 'top results' never names the ranking metric, so the agent knows the domain but not what 'best' means.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you call this to see the leaderboard. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X' and no mention of when a leaderboard is preferable to test_strategy or check_rule.

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