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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations, it discloses that results are simulated, that it never mutates a backtest, that interactive panels only appear in MCP Apps, and that a text summary plus botspot.trade link are always returned. That is meaningful output and environment behavior not encoded in the annotations.

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 answer-to-question opening is front-loaded and most sentences carry concrete information. However, 'Read-only' repeats the readOnlyHint annotation and the preceding 'Never starts or changes a backtest', so there is minor redundancy.

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?

The description adequately covers output shape and safety, including the text summary fallback and external link, even without an output schema. It remains incomplete for the optional limit and series parameters because their meaning is absent from both schema descriptions and the prose.

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 0%, so the description must explain all three parameters; it only clarifies that backtestId should come from list_backtests or backtest_status. It does not explain what limit controls or that series can be 'equity' or 'drawdown', despite mentioning only the equity curve.

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 opens with the exact question the tool answers and enumerates the metrics returned (total return, CAGR, max drawdown, Sharpe, and equity curve) for one saved backtest. It also rules out starting or changing a backtest, distinguishing it from lifecycle siblings like start_backtest and stop_backtest.

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 gives concrete invocation guidance by telling the agent to source backtestId from list_backtests or backtest_status. It also states the tool never starts or changes a backtest, but it does not explicitly compare itself with show_backtest_comparison or explain when a single-backtest dashboard is preferable.

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