get_backtest_result

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It fully documents the return schema, including the `ok` flag, status, error handling, and the `result` field conditionally populated when status is `'done'`. It also covers the unknown job case. It doesn't mention replication or side effects, but for a fetcher that's a reasonable trade-off.

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 well-organized with an Args section and a Returns section, both concise and free of fluff. Every sentence adds value, and the return format is presented in a compact but complete manner.

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 one-parameter fetch operation, the description is fully sufficient. It specifies input provenance, success and error return shapes, and conditional behavior of the `result` field. No output schema exists, but the description provides one inline, ensuring the agent understands what to expect.

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?

Although the schema provides only the name and type of `job_id`, the description explains it is a 'Job identifier returned by `run_backtest_dynamic`'. This provenance clue adds essential meaning beyond the schema, fully compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 states the action ('Fetch status and summary') and the resource ('a backtest job stored in SQLite'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_backtest_artifacts and list_backtest_jobs by focusing on job results rather than artifacts or a list.

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 provides clear context by referencing `run_backtest_dynamic` as the source of `job_id`, implying this tool is used after starting a backtest. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for other needs (e.g., get_backtest_artifacts for file outputs).

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