tool_get_portfolio_backtest_status

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It usefully reveals the possible status values and progress percentage, which helps set expectations. However, it does not explicitly state that this operation has no side effects, nor does it describe error behavior for invalid or unknown portfolio_backtest_id values.

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: the first sentence states the action, and the second sentence summarizes the return information. There is no filler or repetition, and it is appropriately sized for a simple status-check tool.

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 status tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and return behavior. However, it leaves usage context and parameter provenance to inference, and it does not clarify its relationship to the similar sibling tool_get_backtest_status. These gaps make it minimally adequate rather than fully complete.

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 0%, and the description does not mention portfolio_backtest_id at all. The parameter's name makes its purpose somewhat obvious, but the description does not explain where the ID comes from, its format, or that it should be the ID returned by tool_run_portfolio_backtest.

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 ('Check') and resource ('status of a portfolio backtest') and explicitly lists the returned statuses and progress percentage. It clearly communicates the tool's function, though it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tool_get_backtest_status beyond the word 'portfolio', and 'running' is slightly ambiguous since 'completed' is also a possible status.

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 description implies this tool is used to poll or inspect an ongoing portfolio backtest by returning statuses like 'queued' and 'running'. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tool_get_backtest_status or tool_get_portfolio_backtest_results, and it does not state that it should be called after tool_run_portfolio_backtest.

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