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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful conceptual context (fitted-to-past vs. genuinely out-of-sample), but says nothing about what happens if the strategy was never promoted or what data window is used.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded on the actual comparison. The closing sentence is partly rhetoric rather than information, but it does convey why the tool exists, so it mostly earns its place.

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 should have indicated what is returned (which backtest/forward metrics) and any precondition on the strategy's state. It explains the concept well but leaves the operational contract thin for a tool an agent must invoke blind.

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?

One required parameter ('id') with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never states that the id is a strategy identifier or what form it takes. With the schema silent, the description was the only place to compensate and it does not.

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 comparison (backtest vs. forward performance since promotion) over the implied resource (a strategy). It is distinguishable in spirit from compare_backtests, but the description never names that sibling or explicitly says the input is a strategy id, leaving a small ambiguity.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, prerequisites (e.g., the strategy must have been promoted to have forward results), or named alternatives. The line 'This is the number that matters' is persuasive framing, not usage guidance.

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