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

Annotations only declare it is not read-only/destructive/open-world, but the description adds real context beyond them: it consumes one backtest credit, requires a Pro plan, and produces a run result. It omits idempotency/repeat-fork behavior and error cases, but the added cost and gating details are substantive.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and effect, and the sourcing instruction follows logically. The standalone 'Pro.' fragment is abrupt though effective; overall it earns its place with no filler.

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 single-param tool with no output schema, it covers what the tool does, its side effects, the plan requirement, and how to obtain the argument. What is returned (e.g., how the new strategy is identified) is left implicit, a minor gap.

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 0% (a bare string with no description), so the description carries the full burden and does so well: it clarifies the param is a run id (not a strategy id), which is subtle given the tool is about strategies, and names two concrete sources for it.

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 (copy/fork) and resource (someone else's public strategy) plus the additional side effect (runs it once to produce a result). It clearly describes creating a private copy, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_strategy or run_backtest.

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?

Tells the agent exactly what to pass (the id of one of the strategy's public runs) and where to get it (search_strategies or a report link), and flags the 'Pro' requirement. It gives clear context for use but does not state exclusions or contrast with any alternative tool.

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