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

With no annotations provided, the description should disclose behavioral traits like side effects, data mutation, permissions, or computational costs. It only describes the action and purpose, missing any transparency about what happens during the backtest or whether it produces side effects. The lack of disclosure is significant for a complex tool.

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?

The description is two concise sentences: the first states the core action and method, the second provides usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the essential purpose and contains no unnecessary words.

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?

This tool has 18 parameters and no output schema or annotations, yet the description gives only a high-level purpose. It does not explain walk-forward analysis, parameter interactions, or return values, leaving the agent under-informed for a complex operation.

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 high (94%), so the input schema already documents parameter meanings thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter insights, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema carries the burden.

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 uses a specific verb ('Perform') and names a concrete resource ('full strategy backtest') with a defined methodology ('Walk-forward analysis'). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings by focusing on historical backtesting for general rules and long-term performance, rather than single decisions or pattern searches.

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?

'Use this for testing general rules or long-term performance' provides clear context for when to invoke this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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