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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint true, non-destructive, closed-world), but the description adds substantive behavior: newest-first ordering, the exact return fields, the four `performance_tier` enum values, and the persistence prerequisite. It does not explain truncation/paging behavior when results exceed `limit`, which is the main remaining blind spot.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and return shape, then args — good ordering with no filler sentences. The paragraph describing where reports live in the quanterlab.com sidebar is user-facing context rather than agent-invocation guidance, so it is mildly expendable.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the return-value work itself: fields, enum values, ordering, and the `report_url` distinction for unsaved runs. Completeness is only slightly undercut by the absence of guidance on how to retrieve results past the limit cap.

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 carries the full burden and does: `strategy_code` is described as an optional filter with three concrete example codes and explicit all-strategies-when-omitted behavior, and `limit` adds bounds (1-100) and the default (20) that the bare schema does not state.

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?

Opens with a specific verb + resource + ordering ('List the authenticated user's saved backtest results, newest first') and scopes it to the caller's own saved runs, which cleanly separates it from siblings like list_my_running_tasks or get_backtest_progress. The clause that a run appears only after save_workflow_result further pins down what 'saved' means.

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?

Gives a real usage condition (results from an assistant-started run only surface here after `save_workflow_result`, otherwise use its `report_url`), which steers the agent away from expecting in-flight runs. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative tool for in-progress runs, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not routing.

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