validate_strategy_metrics

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and not destructive. The description adds 'run the marketplace validation gates' which implies execution, but no additional behavioral details (like response format or side effects) are provided. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences: first states purpose and lists metrics, second distinguishes from sibling. Every sentence earns its place. Front-loaded with key information.

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?

The description is brief given 10 parameters (6 required) and nested objects. It does not explain what the validation gates are, what the return value looks like, or prerequisites. Adequate but could be more complete.

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 100%, so the schema already describes all parameters. The description lists some metric names (Sharpe, OOS trades, etc.) which correspond to parameters, but does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Run') and resource ('marketplace validation gates') and lists the metrics (Sharpe, OOS trades, drawdown, win rate, MCPT). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool validate_strategy, making it clear what this tool does differently.

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 explicitly differentiates from validate_strategy, providing an alternative. However, it does not specify when to choose this tool over other related tools like run_marketplace_autopilot or evaluate_strategy_for_prop_fund.

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