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 genuinely new behavior: the default Sharpe sort and its rationale (avoids surfacing overfit high-return results), plus the minTrades filtering behavior. Return format and pagination remain unstated.

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?

Three front-loaded sentences with no filler, and the default-sort behavior leads. The explanatory clauses justifying Sharpe ranking and minTrades filtering earn their place by explaining non-obvious defaults.

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 15-parameter search tool with no output schema and near-zero schema coverage, the description covers only two parameters. It omits pagination (limit/offset), return shape, and the meaning of most filters, so it is not fully complete for correct invocation.

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 13% across 15 parameters, so most filters (symbol, timeframe, minSharpe, maxDrawdownPct, etc.) are undocumented in both schema and description. The description only adds meaning for minTrades and the sort default, leaving the bulk of the surface unexplained.

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 and resource ("Search public backtest results") and the "public" scope implicitly separates it from the private strategy tools. However, it never names a sibling like list_strategies or compare_backtests, so the agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 implies the discovery use case and explains the minTrades exclusion rule, which is useful guidance. But it offers no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use versus list_strategies or compare_backtests, leaving routing to inference.

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