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

Annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: results are scoped to the account, sorted newest-first, and include specific fields plus a report URL. It does not contradict the annotations and provides useful detail beyond them.

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 two sentences with no redundancy. The core result information is front-loaded, and the comparative guidance about list_strategies is placed second. Every clause contributes to understanding the tool.

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?

For a simple read-only list tool with an output schema present and a single self-explanatory parameter, the description covers scope, ordering, and key fields. Annotations cover safety, and the output schema handles return structure. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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?

The only parameter, `limit`, has zero schema description coverage, and the tool description does not mention it at all. Since schema descriptions are absent, the description should compensate by explaining the parameter's effect, but it remains unexplained. The parameter name and constraints provide some hints, but the description adds no meaning.

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 clearly identifies the resource ('the account's backtests'), the ordering ('newest first'), and the exact returned fields (id, date, trade count, net P&L, report URL). It also explicitly differentiates this tool from list_strategies, so the agent knows exactly what this tool does and what it does not do.

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?

The description gives a direct usage rule: use this when you need the most recent run, and explicitly says list_strategies is the wrong alternative because it returns only evidence-passed results ranked by consistency. This is a clear when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use distinction.

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