strategy_get_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the description is consistent with it. However, the description never addresses the oddities an agent would want explained: eight parameters on a read tool, several 'expected_*' precondition tokens, and why idempotentHint is false for a pure read. With annotations carrying the basics, a 3 fits.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the payload enumeration comes first and the scoping clause closes it. It is efficient, though it packs four noun phrases into one clause without telling the agent what the structure of the returned object is.

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?

With no output schema, the description does a fair job of naming what comes back (performance object, long/short metrics, settings, date window). But for an 8-parameter tool with a nested object argument and precondition-style 'expected_*' fields, the description is silent on the guard semantics that materially affect correct invocation.

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 25% across 8 parameters, so the description carries the burden and fails to. It names no parameters; entity_id is only obliquely referenced as 'one exact strategy', and probe_id, expected_symbol, expected_session, expected_timeframe, and expected_inputs are undocumented in both schema and description.

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 ('Read') and enumerates the payload: performance object, long/short metrics, settings, and report date window, scoped to 'one exact strategy'. That distinguishes it reasonably from bulk siblings like strategy_scan or strategy_sweep, but it does not explicitly separate it from adjacent single-strategy reads such as strategy_get_trades or strategy_get_equity.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternatives. The phrase 'for one exact strategy' implies single-entity scoping versus the scanning/sweep tools, but an agent gets no instruction on when to prefer this over strategy_get_trades, strategy_get_equity, or strategy_status.

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