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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the substantive analysis scope (three named risk categories) plus the fact that source-code scanning is static. However, it says nothing about whether the tool is read-only, what the verdict output looks like, whether findings are heuristic/confidence-scored, or how the code path and metrics path differ in behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; each clause (EA source code, backtest metrics, three defect classes) adds distinct information. Slightly dense as a run-on enumeration, but nothing could be cut without losing scope.

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 six-parameter, zero-required, default-heavy tool with no output schema, the description should explain what happens when mql5Code is omitted (metrics-only audit) and roughly what the audit returns. Neither is covered, leaving the agent unsure how to interpret results or which input mode it is triggering.

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 all six parameters are already documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds a modest value: it clarifies that the tool accepts either source code or backtest metrics, which hints that mql5Code is an alternate input path rather than a mandatory one, but it gives no thresholds or interpretation guidance for profitFactor/maxDrawdownPct.

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 ('Audit') applied to a specific resource ('MetaTrader 5 (MQL5) Expert Advisor source code or strategy backtest metrics') and enumerates the exact defect classes it looks for: martingale patterns, missing stop-loss guards, overfitting probability. An agent can distinguish this from sibling 'simulate_grid_martingale_survival' (simulation vs. static audit) without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is only implied: the two input paths (source code vs. backtest metrics) are visible in the description, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' framing, no prerequisites, and no named alternative among the six siblings. The agent must infer that code auditing versus metric auditing are the two supported modes.

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