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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses concrete behavioral details: it consumes compute quota with specific beta limits (5 per day, 1 per minute), can take up to about 85 seconds, and never places orders. This is exactly the kind of rate-limit and side-effect context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 sentences, with the core action and result front-loaded and the warnings kept tight. Each sentence earns its place: what it does, how costly it is, and what constraints/limitations apply.

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 compensates by listing the expected summary fields. It also covers quota limits, runtime, date constraints, and the absence of order placement. Given full parameter schema coverage and a straightforward output, this is complete enough for correct invocation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters in detail. The description adds a useful global constraint ('Date range at most 90 days, ending no later than today') but does not meaningfully explain individual parameters beyond what the schema already states.

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 plus resource: 'Replay one of your saved strategies on historical candles and return the summary,' and enumerates the key outputs. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling read-only tools like get_my_strategies or get_market_snapshot because it emphasizes compute and simulation, not retrieval.

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 description gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate: historical research on saved strategies, with explicit constraints on quota, runtime, and date range. It also tells the agent what it is not ('not a forecast' and 'places no orders'), though it does not name specific alternative tools or formal when-not conditions.

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