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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and no destructive behavior. The description adds value beyond those by specifying exactly what the list contains for each surface: the question answered, page, API endpoints, and auth, plus the status that all five are current.

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 sentences convey the full scope with no filler or redundant restating of the tool name. The key content items are front-loaded and each clause adds meaningful information.

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 zero-parameter, read-only informational tool, the description is complete: it lists the exact five surfaces, what information is provided for each, and the current/non-superseded status. No required context for calling it correctly is missing.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so there is no schema burden to compensate for. The description appropriately focuses on the returned content rather than parameter meanings, which is sufficient for a parameterless tool.

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 ('list') and a precise resource ('the platform's five backtest surfaces'), enumerating all five by name. This clearly differentiates the tool from siblings like get_backtest_models, since no other sibling is described in terms of surface-level information.

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 gives useful context by naming the five surfaces and stating that none supersedes another, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_backtest_models. The usage is implied rather than clearly guided.

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