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

Annotations only say readOnly=false, openWorld=true, idempotent=false, destructive=false; the description adds substantially more: results become public at a URL, tracking starts today and runs daily, only server-computed results are stored (no client tampering), it consumes one backtest credit, and free accounts are rate-limited to 3/day. It also discloses the private-visibility escape hatch, so the agent knows the default exposure is public.

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, front-loaded with the action and its public consequence, then the tracking behavior, then cost/rate/visibility constraints. Every clause carries information an agent needs; nothing is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description implies a slug/URL result without stating the actual return shape (slug, url, run id). Everything else an agent needs for a mutating, publicly-visible, credit-consuming operation — cost, limits, exposure, idempotency implications — is covered.

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 already 80%, but the description still adds meaning: the 'spec' parameter is the same format as run_backtest, and visibility='private' is explained as 'keeps it unlisted', clarifying the enum's real effect. as_of, title, and description semantics are left entirely to the schema, so it does not fully compensate for the remaining gap.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Runs a backtest spec ... and publishes it to the FinzData Hub') plus the concrete outcome: a public, reproducible strategy page at data.finzdata.com/s/<slug>, forward-tracked daily. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling run_backtest by noting the spec format is shared but the effect (publication) is new.

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 clear context for when this applies — you have a backtest spec and want a published, forward-tracked page — and names run_backtest as the format reference. It also adds operational guidance (costs one backtest, 3/day on free accounts) but does not explicitly contrast with register_strategy or fork_strategy, which an agent could plausibly confuse with publishing.

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