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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses some behavioral aspects: it compares the submitted universe against covered delisted symbols and reports which symbols died. However, it omits details like whether it is read-only, how 'died' is determined, or any edge cases. The description adds value but is not comprehensive.

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, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the key selling point ('FREE') and then immediately states the action and result. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description does a fair job explaining the core functionality and output (verdict and lists). However, it does not cover all parameters (asset) or provide details about the response structure, error conditions, or prerequisites. It is complete enough for a simple tool but has clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It maps 'universe' to symbols and 'window' to start/end, but it does not explain the 'asset' parameter, date formats, or optionality. The description provides only partial semantics, leaving the agent guessing on key details like asset type and date range syntax.

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 ('submit') and resource ('backtest universe + window') and clearly states the output ('survivorship-bias verdict'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like lookahead_check and audit_my_data by focusing on delisted symbols, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description clearly implies when to use the tool: when you want to check for survivorship bias in a backtest universe. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the scenario is clear. Sibling tools exist, but no exclusion is provided, so it earns a 4 rather than 5.

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