research_equity_metrics

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the definition is not responsible for explaining the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral caveats: it performs computation locally, does not annualize when the sample spacing is unknown, and is not a replacement for Strategy Tester. It still omits which metrics are produced and what the return shape is, which matters because no output schema exists.

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?

Two sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the disclaimers following. Nothing is redundant, and every clause carries information.

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, read-only computation tool with no output schema, the definition gives the essential framing: this is local, sample-driven, non-annualizing, and not a Strategy Tester substitute. The remaining gap in the return shape is real but minor against an otherwise tight safety profile.

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?

'From supplied samples' and 'unknown sample spacing' hint that the equity array holds raw equity observations in order, and that their spacing is not inferred. That adds some meaning beyond the bare 'array of numbers'. But with 0% schema description coverage, the definition leaves it unclear whether the values are absolute equity or returns, and what the ordering and frequency assumptions are.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Compute transparent local equity metrics from supplied samples.' The words 'local' and 'from supplied samples' distinguish it from server-side siblings such as strategy_get_equity and strategy_compare_metrics, although neither sibling is named explicitly.

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 sentence 'Does not substitute these calculations for TradingView Strategy Tester results' sets a boundary for when to use the tool, warning against using it instead of Strategy Tester. However, it does not say what to use instead, nor does it state the positive condition that selects this tool over strategy_get_equity or research_trade_statistics. The guidance therefore remains implied.

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