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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two important traits beyond the schema: the run is queued rather than executed inline, and billing is charged at queue time rather than completion. It omits what is returned (a run identifier for later polling), error behavior, and cost magnitude.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the input constraint and the billing note. Nothing is redundant, though "Minutes are charged at queue time" is compressed to the point of ambiguity about actual cost.

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 7-parameter mutation-style tool with zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, the description accounts for only a fraction of what an agent needs. It says nothing about return values, polling, or five of the seven inputs.

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 0% across 7 parameters, and the description explains only the strategy_id/code pair. The unusual capital default of 236, the required date_from/date_to, symbols, and regime_report receive no explanation anywhere.

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?

"Queue a backtest" gives a specific verb and resource, and "queue" implies asynchronous execution distinct from the read-only siblings backtest_status and backtest_report. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so an agent must infer the division of labor.

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?

"Needs strategy_id OR code (a one-off strategy)" is a genuine prerequisite that tells the agent one of two inputs is mandatory. Beyond that there is no guidance on when to queue versus check status or fetch a report, and no statement about what happens if both are supplied.

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