get_hypothesis

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, indicating safe, read-only behavior. The description adds the specific return fields (formula, entry/exit rules, etc., which is useful but does not disclose new behavioral traits beyond what annotations cover. 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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loading the purpose in the first sentence ('Get full detail for a specific hypothesis/strategy') and listing key content in the second. Every sentence is informative with no verbosity or redundancy.

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 simple read-only tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description covers the return context adequately (listing all key fields). However, it omits any mention of potential errors, prerequisites, or rate limits. The presence of annotations compensates for some missing behavioral context.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'hypothesis_id', which already explains it is 'from search or scan results.' The description does not add any additional meaning or clarification beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool retrieves full details for a specific hypothesis/strategy, listing the exact components (formula, entry/exit rules, direction, performance metrics, version history, trade levels). It ends with 'Everything an agent needs to understand and act on a strategy,' making the purpose unmistakable. Among siblings like 'search' (for finding hypotheses) and 'get_briefed' (different context), this tool is distinct for detailed hypothesis viewing.

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 implies usage when an agent needs detailed information after obtaining a hypothesis_id (likely from 'search'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives, nor does it provide when-not or exclusion criteria. The context is clear from the description but lacks explicit usage guidance.

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