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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful context about the selection criteria (only validated strategies), the ranking logic (worst walk-forward fold, not P&L size), and the caveat that 'pnl' ranking may surface overfits. This goes beyond the schema and annotations, although it doesn't describe return formats or pagination.

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 filler. The first sentence defines scope and ranking, the second states the use case. It is front-loaded and every word 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 read-only list tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is listed, how it is ranked, and when to call it. The annotations handle safety, and the schema covers 'order'. The only minor gap is that the return structure is not described, but that is not critical for a filtered-list tool.

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 schema description covers the 'order' parameter in detail, including the overfit warning for 'pnl'. The tool description reinforces the consistency ranking but does not explain the 'limit' parameter. With 50% schema coverage, the description adds only marginal parameter-level value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 exactly what the tool does: it lists strategies from the account's history that passed out-of-sample and walk-forward checks, ranked by worst walk-forward fold. It distinguishes itself from siblings like run_backtest and get_backtest by emphasizing the validation filter and the 'without re-running anything' use case.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: 'to answer what has worked for me so far?' and 'without re-running anything.' However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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