list_backtests

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the critical lifecycle fact that the tool was removed in 0.6.0, which goes beyond what annotations state. It does not spell out the exact failure mode, but 'removed' strongly implies the tool should not be called.

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 one short sentence that front-loads the most important signal, 'DEPRECATED', and then gives the replacement action. Every word earns its place.

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 deprecated tool with no parameters and an output schema provided, the description contains all an agent needs to make the correct decision: do not call this, call get_backtest() instead.

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?

There are zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the input surface. The description correctly focuses on deprecation instead of repeating parameter information.

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 does not explain the original list_backtests behavior, but it clearly communicates that the tool is deprecated and points to get_backtest() as the replacement. This is enough for an agent to recognize that it should not be invoked and to choose the correct sibling.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent not to use this tool and names the exact alternative and invocation style: 'use get_backtest() without run_id.' This is unambiguous routing guidance for a deprecated tool.

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