fpl_strategy_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It indicates a read-only action by using 'Return' and lists 'known limitations' as an output, but it does not disclose specifics such as data sources, staleness, or what the benchmark status is compared against.

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 a single sentence that lists exactly what is returned, with no filler or repetition. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 parameterless info tool with no output schema, the description names all four return categories and gives a reasonable expectation of the payload. It could add context about how 'selected' is determined, but nothing is missing that would prevent an agent from invoking it.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete and there is nothing for the description to clarify. The baseline of 4 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names the resource: the selected strategy, benchmark status, research sources, and known limitations. It is clear what the tool produces, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling fpl_recommend_moves.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus fpl_recommend_moves, and no conditions or exclusions are mentioned. The intended use is only implied by the tool name and the noun phrase 'selected strategy,' but the description never states the decision context.

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