tastytrade_get_backtest

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that the response includes current status and results only when completed, which is meaningful. However, it does not mention error behavior, whether the operation is read-only, or what happens for an unknown ID.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately identifies the action, the resource, and the key output characteristics.

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 no output schema, the description provides a useful summary of what the tool returns. It is slightly sparse on edge-case behavior, but the core calling context is sufficiently covered.

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 100%, with the 'id' parameter already described as 'Backtest ID returned by tastytrade.' The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the schema does the heavy lifting and the baseline of 3 applies.

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'), a resource ('a tastytrade backtest'), and the identifier-based access method ('by ID'). It also clarifies what the tool returns ('current status and results when completed'), distinguishing it from list and create siblings.

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 clearly implies the tool is used when you already have a backtest ID and want its status or results. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, but the 'by ID' framing gives enough context to differentiate it from listing or creating backtests.

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