tool_get_backtest_results

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it lists the return fields, notes that trades_preview is limited to the first 10 trades, and adds an actionable requirement to share results_url. It omits failure modes or prerequisites beyond 'completed,' but for a simple retrieval tool this is strong coverage.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a bulleted return summary, and a prominent IMPORTANT note. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, and the mandatory sharing behavior is front-loaded at the end where it still stands out.

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 single-parameter getter with an output schema, the description covers the essential purpose, return contents, and required follow-up behavior. It could be more complete by explaining what happens if the backtest_id is invalid or the backtest is not yet complete, but those are minor gaps for a tool this simple.

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 input schema has only backtest_id with zero schema description coverage, and the tool description does not elaborate on the parameter beyond the obvious name. Since backtest_id is self-explanatory and has no enum or complex constraints, the lack of added detail is not a major issue, but the description also does not compensate for the missing schema docs.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get the results of a completed backtest.' It clearly identifies a read operation and distinguishes it from running or status tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_backtest_status or get_portfolio_backtest_results.

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 word 'completed' implies this tool should be used only after a backtest finishes, which is useful contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as get_backtest_status for polling progress. The instruction to always share results_url is a clear usage note but not a selection guideline.

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