Optimize strategy (2-D parameter sweep)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and excels: it discloses the 600s wait, timeout error with jobId, grid orientation, the 'preferring cells that actually traded' tie-break, and the verbatim zero-trade warning. It also explains default timeframe behavior.

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 dense and front-loaded, stating the core purpose first, then prerequisites, parameter rules, return values, and error handling. Every sentence adds operational value with no filler or repetition of schema text.

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 an 11-parameter, long-running optimization tool with no output schema, this description is thorough: it covers requirements, edge cases (zero trades), result contents, timeout behavior, and related tool calls. It leaves little room for misinterpretation or missing steps.

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 schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial meaning: it explains the axis constraint (must not be same node id AND field), linear endpoint-inclusive spacing with a concrete example, bounds strictness (xMax > xMin), steps range/default, and how to source node ids/fields from get_strategy. This goes well beyond the schema.

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 names the specific action ('Run a 2-D parameter sweep'), the target resource (a strategy's nodes), and the method (backtests a steps x steps grid). It clearly distinguishes this from siblings like run_backtest by framing it as a tuning tool to use after a strategy is sensible.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('Use this after a strategy already trades sensibly'), prereqs (call get_strategy first, get_capabilities for bounds), and even warns against nonsensical ranges. It names alternative/companion tools (run_backtest, get_strategy, get_capabilities, get_job_status) and gives concrete conditions.

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