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

The description adds substantial context beyond the annotations: the cost model ('free on every plan'), the execution location (FinzData servers), the concrete side effect and its exact destination path (/workspace/strategies/<slug>/) plus the opt-out condition, and the shape of the returned result. Given that readOnlyHint=false is the only structured hint about mutation, the file-write disclosure is exactly the missing piece an agent needs.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information (operation, cost, side effects, return contents), with the core action front-loaded. No redundant restatement of the title and no filler.

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 real side effects and no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by naming the artifacts written and summarizing the result structure. The remaining shortfall is the undocumented format/expected value of 'end' and no note on overwrite behavior when the target directory already exists.

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 schema description coverage is only 33% (only 'save' has a description, and it is a bare 'Default true'), so the description must carry the load and largely does: it explains that save controls writing spec.json/result.json, that end defaults to today and bounds the point-in-time history, and that slug identifies the published strategy to re-run. Date format for 'end' is the one gap left.

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 and resource pair: 'Re-run a listed FinzData strategy exactly as published, on its full point-in-time history.' The word 'listed' implicitly distinguishes this from running a user-authored strategy, but the likely sibling alternative (workspace_run) is never named, so the differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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 statement 'Free on every plan' effectively removes cost as a blocking consideration for calling it, which is genuine usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative for agents that want to run something other than an already-listed strategy.

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