strategy_export

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the export spans paginated reads and detects report changes mid-pagination, which explains the idempotentHint=false annotation in a way the annotations alone do not.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler, and the composite scope is front-loaded before the pagination caveat. Minor loss for the semicolon-clause packing two distinct ideas without further elaboration.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should clarify what the caller gets back — inline JSON payload, a CSV file, or a job handle — and it does not. The pagination-change caveat and the schema's expected_layout_id guard hint at a heavier operation, but the return contract remains ambiguous.

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 description coverage is only 40%, and the description mentions no parameters at all. The 'format' enum (json vs csv) and 'max_trades' bound are undocumented anywhere in prose, and the export target/destination semantics are unspecified.

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?

States a specific verb (export) and a composite resource: the full report, complete trade history, and per-trade equity in one call. This implicitly separates it from the granular siblings strategy_get_report, strategy_get_trades, and strategy_get_equity, though none are named.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is the bulk/combined alternative to the individual getters. There is no explicit 'use this when you need everything at once' statement, no exclusions, and no guidance on when the single-resource siblings are preferable.

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