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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, yet the description still adds value: results are simulated, the operation never mutates, and it always returns a text summary plus a botspot.trade link while optionally rendering an interactive MCP Apps panel. It doesn't say how it differs from siblings like get_backtest_artifact or get_backtest_visuals, which keeps it below a 5.

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 dense, front-loaded sentences: the question it answers first, the ID source second, and the guardrails/return behavior last. No filler.

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 does step in to say what comes back (metrics, equity curve, text summary, link) and that it is simulation-only. The remaining gap is the undocumented limit/series parameters, which leaves an agent guessing about the returned data shape.

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% for three parameters, and the description only gestures at backtestId via 'Use a backtestId from list_backtests'. The effect of 'limit' (series-point cap?) and the 'series' enum (equity vs drawdown) are never mentioned, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage 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 concrete verb and resource — 'total return, CAGR, max drawdown, Sharpe and the equity curve for one saved backtest' — so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from show_backtest_comparison by scoping to 'one saved 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?

Explicitly routes the agent to list_backtests or backtest_status for obtaining a backtestId, and states a hard negative: 'Never starts or changes a backtest.' Both the when and the when-not are spelled out.

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