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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. Beyond that the description discloses the search space (daily stop at several levels, one-to-three trade cap, up to three accounts) and what comes back (best guard, how much it lifts odds, a build link), which is genuinely useful behavioral context. It does not mention computational cost or how the trade-level sweep is bounded, which matters for up to 5,000 trades.

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 long sentences packed with nested parentheses make the core action hard to extract on first read. The key output information is buried mid-sentence rather than front-loaded, and the PropPassCheck/EA clause costs space without adding decision value.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by saying the result is the single best guard, the size of the improvement, and a link to build it. Combined with the input constraints, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only runtime/cost expectations are 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description reiterates the starting_balance requirement and the all-or-nothing date rule, both of which the schema already states, and adds no format or edge-case meaning beyond it. Baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Retests a trader's own closed trades'), the scope (up to three accounts, daily stop levels, one-to-three trade caps) and the deliverable (the guard that most lifts the pass/payout odds, with magnitude and a build link). It is clear what the tool does, but the dense parenthetical about PropPassCheck and EA building muddies the read, and it never contrasts itself with siblings like test_trades or find_best_size.

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 real trades with starting_balance; give dates when known so each day's trades stay together' supplies prerequisites and a data-quality condition. There is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-another-tool guidance and no stated exclusions, so usage is implied rather than directed.

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