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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it is static, fetches no market data, and is 'never rate-limited by the live budget' – information an agent cannot derive from 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?

Front-loads the what, then the when-to-use, then operational notes, then the sibling redirect. Every sentence carries unique information with 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, but the description explains what the return contains (IDs, parameters with defaults, each indicator's default long rule), covers the zero-arg nature, and routes to siblings. Complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this with 'Takes no arguments' and describes what the returned records contain (IDs, parameters with defaults, default long rule), which helps the agent interpret the call.

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 (List) and resource (built-in technical indicators), then enumerates the concrete families returned (RSI, MA crossovers, ADX, Bollinger, CCI, Stochastic). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling list_portfolios, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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 explicit triggers: 'Call this to answer what strategies or indicators can be tested' and 'before run_backtest when unsure which indicator_id or parameters to use.' It also names the alternative (list_portfolios) with the condition that selects it, leaving nothing to inference.

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