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

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered, and the description only adds the 'cost: free' tag. It says nothing about whether the job might still be running, whether the result is a snapshot, or how to poll, which is the behavior an agent actually needs here.

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 with the category tag and the required input leading, and no redundant wording. Every element, including the free-cost note, carries information the caller can act on.

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 one parameter, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the definition is callable but not complete. It omits the async dimension, including whether the backtest may still be pending, whether polling is needed, and what the result contains, which matters for a task-result query tool.

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 100%, so baseline would be 3, but the description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema's '回测任务 ID（必填）' by identifying jobId as the value returned from run_backtest. That linkage tells the agent where the argument comes from, which the schema 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?

The description gives a specific verb and object (查询回测任务结果) and ties it to the backtest workflow. It is clearly distinct from run_backtest, but it never contrasts itself with platform_backtest_history or platform_explain_backtest, so sibling differentiation is only partly achieved.

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?

It implies the call order by stating that jobId is the task ID returned by run_backtest, which is real routing value. However, it never explicitly says when to use this instead of backtest_history or explain_backtest, nor does it cover any prerequisite or failure conditions.

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