tool_get_portfolio_backtest_results

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates this is a retrieval operation for completed backtests and adds a sharing protocol for the results URL. It does not describe error behavior for incomplete/failed backtests, authentication needs, or rate limits, so transparency is adequate but not thorough.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and uses a bulleted list for return types. The IMPORTANT instruction is actionable and not wasted. The return list may somewhat duplicate output-schema details, but it does not make the description overly long.

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 one-parameter retrieval tool with an output schema, the description covers the completion precondition and the required sharing behavior. It is missing guidance on how to obtain a valid portfolio_backtest_id and what happens when the backtest is still pending or failed, which would be useful in a sibling-tool context.

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 schema has 0% parameter description coverage and the one parameter, portfolio_backtest_id, is only minimally explained by the phrase 'completed portfolio backtest'. The description does not say where to obtain the ID, what format it should be in, or how the ID relates to other portfolio-backtest tools.

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('results of a completed portfolio backtest'), and lists the returned data categories. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tool_get_backtest_results, but the 'portfolio' qualifier and the URL emphasis make its scope reasonably clear.

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' tells the agent this tool should be used only after a backtest has finished, and the IMPORTANT note provides a clear post-call instruction to share results_url. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like tool_get_portfolio_backtest_status for checking progress or tool_get_backtest_results for non-portfolio backtests.

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