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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that by noting the run is 'bounded' and by specifying the return categories (metrics, trades, tunable inputs). It does not contradict the annotations.

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 a single sentence with no filler. The core action, scope, and expected outputs are front-loaded, and every word 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?

Given 9 parameters, 5 required, low schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is not sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly. It omits parameter format expectations, required-field semantics, and any detail about the returned metrics/trades structure. The annotations cover safety but not invocation correctness.

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 only 44%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters like symbol, timeframe, startDate, endDate, and source. It does not; it only uses the generic phrase 'tunable inputs,' which weakly maps to the inputs parameter but provides no field-level meaning or required-parameter context.

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 ('Run'), a clear resource ('baseline backtest'), and states what is returned ('metrics, trades, and tunable inputs as trial evidence'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_parameter_sweep or analyze_* tools, which have different scopes.

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 word 'baseline' and the phrase 'as trial evidence' imply this is for establishing a reference point in research trials, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives such as run_parameter_sweep or walk_forward_candidate. Usage context is implied rather than stated.

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