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

Although annotations already declare this as a safe read-only operation, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: the returned fields, the possible status values, the 0-100 progress scale, and extra completion-time fields (`result`, `report_url`). It also explains that the completed summary mirrors `summarize_workflow`, which helps the agent interpret results without opening another schema.

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 front-loaded with purpose and then return behavior, and most sentences earn their place. The final sentence on `result` and `report_url` is dense and slightly awkward, but the overall structure remains efficient.

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 one-parameter status tool with annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains the return shape, status values, progress range, and completion behavior. The only real gap is explicitly connecting `task_id` to the return value of `start_backtest`.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the single required `task_id` parameter. It implies the identifier comes from a backtest started with `start_backtest`, but it never explicitly states that the task ID must be the value returned by that call. That is useful context but incomplete compensation.

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 the exact resource (backtest progress) and ties it to the sibling tool that starts the run (`start_backtest`), so an agent can immediately place it among the many other progress tools. It is specific about what is being retrieved rather than merely restating the tool name.

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?

It clearly establishes the usage context: this is for a backtest started with `start_backtest`. That is stronger than implied usage, but it does not explicitly exclude alternatives such as `list_my_running_tasks` or explain when to prefer a different progress/status tool.

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