QuantConnect

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description doesn't contradict this (it says 'Read' which aligns with read-only). However, it adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide - no information about authentication needs, rate limits, what data is returned, or how the optimization is retrieved.

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 extremely concise at just three words. While this represents under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, from a pure length perspective it's minimal with zero wasted words. Every word earns its place, though there are too few words to be truly helpful.

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?

Given this is a read operation with readOnlyHint annotation and an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a tool with 0% parameter schema coverage and no behavioral context beyond annotations, the description is inadequate. It should at minimum explain what an 'optimization' is in this context and what the parameter represents.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for the single parameter, the description carries the burden of explaining parameter meaning but fails completely. 'Read an optimization' provides no information about the required optimizationId parameter, its format, or what it represents. The schema defines the parameter but with minimal description, so the tool description should compensate but doesn't.

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 'Read an optimization' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. It doesn't specify what 'optimization' refers to in this domain or what aspects are being read. While it includes a verb+resource, it's too vague to distinguish from sibling tools like 'read_backtest' or 'read_live_algorithm' that also read different resources.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to read an optimization versus creating, updating, deleting, or listing optimizations (all sibling tools). There's no indication of prerequisites, context, or relationships to other operations in the system.

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