strategy_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the vague notions of "availability" and "freshness evidence" but does not explain what makes freshness "qualified," how staleness is reported, or why six precondition parameters exist and what happens on mismatch.

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?

It is a single sentence with no waste, but the phrasing is abstract and jargon-heavy ("explicitly qualified freshness evidence"), so it is compact yet not front-loaded with actionable meaning.

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 an 8-parameter tool with a nested object, precondition/mismatch semantics, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It does not convey what the response contains or how the expected_* preconditions behave.

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 coverage is only 25% (2 of 8 params described), covering just target_id and expected_layout_id. The description explains none of the parameters, including the required entity_id and the nested expected_inputs object, so it fails to compensate for the large documentation gap.

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?

"Read report availability, exact context and explicitly qualified freshness evidence" gestures at returning status but never names the resource (a strategy? a strategy report?) or the verb objective clearly enough to distinguish it. Against siblings like strategy_get_report, strategy_get_inputs, strategy_wait, and strategy_list, an agent cannot tell what this uniquely returns.

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 when-to-use guidance at all: no mention of when to call strategy_status versus strategy_get_report, strategy_wait, or strategy_list. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name.

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