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

The description adds substantial context beyond annotations: it identifies the operation as a paper preview with sealed:false, is_keep:false, paper:true, notes that the generated public script may be stored, and clarifies that no sealed Rust proof is created. This is important side-effect information for a non-read-only, non-idempotent tool, and it is consistent with 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 description is front-loaded with the most important distinction: PAPER PREVIEW and not a verdict, followed by the one-shot behavior and side effects. It is dense and mostly earns its space, though the parenthetical notation and final style list make it slightly run-on rather than maximally crisp.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the description covers the key operations, the paper/non-verdict status, storage side effects, absence of sealed Rust proof, return contents, and style options. An output schema exists, so return-value details need not be repeated, and the schema handles the remaining parameter descriptions.

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 75%, so most parameter meaning is already present in the schema. The description adds useful semantics for the style parameter by listing allowed values balanced|trend|breakout|momentum|mean_reversion|scalping, which the schema itself does not enumerate. It does not add much beyond the schema for idea, asset, or timeframe.

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 states a specific multi-step operation: generate ArenaScript, validate it, then backtest with the Lab Rust engine on server OHLCV. It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by calling it a PAPER PREVIEW and explicitly saying it is not a verdict, directing agents to get_lab_desktop_handoff for that. The combined generate-validate-backtest purpose is clear.

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 clear usage context as a ONE-SHOT public exploration for quick discovery, and explicitly names get_lab_desktop_handoff as the alternative when a verdict is needed. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with other closely related siblings such as backtest_arenascript, validate_arenascript, or generate_arenascript_strategy, leaving some routing inference to the agent.

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