Get Backtest By Rating

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful non-annotation fact ('Requires auth.') but says nothing about return format, pagination, or behavior with empty ranges. Modest added value over structured data.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the returned metrics and tier names before the auth note and usage hint. Every sentence carries information; no filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of telling the agent what comes back (hit rate and profit per tier) and notes the auth requirement. It is close to complete, missing only default/date-range behavior for the optional from/to parameters.

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 description coverage is 100% and all three parameters (from, to, league) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description alludes to league comparison but adds no date-range syntax, format, or default behavior 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?

States a precise verb+resource: hit rate and profit broken down by rating tier, and enumerates the tiers (Elite, Good, Marginal, Weak, Avoid). This clearly separates it from siblings like backtest_summary, backtest_daily, and backtest_by_stat, though the name's 'Get' verb adds little.

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?

Offers an implied use case ('compare tier quality across leagues') but gives no explicit when-not guidance and never names the alternative backtest tools an agent should consider instead. An agent can infer usage, but routing between the four backtest siblings is left to guesswork.

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