evaluate_strategy_for_prop_fund

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds 'uses its live stats' and 'returns ranked eligible funds with strengths/warnings', which is consistent but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose. No wasted words. Efficiently conveys the core action and result.

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 8 parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not clarify parameter roles (e.g., which stats are mandatory), how the scoring works, or what 'ranked' means. Insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.

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 coverage is only 13% (only fund_key has description). The description does not explain any of the 8 parameters, leaving the agent to guess which stats are required or how they are used. Given low coverage, description should compensate but does not.

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 verb 'Score', the resource 'strategy against prop firms', and the output 'ranked eligible funds with strengths/warnings'. It also mentions optional specificity to a single fund, distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_prop_funds'.

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?

Implies evaluation against all or a specific fund, but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance compared to siblings like 'validate_strategy'. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., need a registered strategy) or when not to use this tool.

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