get_retirement_strategy

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what format the information returns, if there are rate limits, or if authentication is required. The description only states what information is retrieved without behavioral context.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It includes helpful examples but could be slightly more structured by separating the purpose from examples. No wasted words 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 operation with 1 parameter and 100% schema coverage, the description is adequate but incomplete. Without annotations or output schema, it should ideally mention the return format or that it's informational only. It covers the basics but lacks context about what 'detailed info' entails.

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 100%, so the schema already documents the single parameter. The description adds minimal value by listing example strategy IDs, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose: 'Get detailed info on tax-advantaged retirement strategies' with specific examples. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_retirement_accounts' by focusing on strategies rather than accounts, though it doesn't explicitly mention this distinction.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention related tools like 'plan_retirement_withdrawals' or 'plan_multi_year_taxes', nor does it specify prerequisites or appropriate contexts for retrieving strategy information.

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