data_get_strategy_results

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It explicitly discloses that calling the tool auto-opens the panel and auto-unhides a hidden strategy, explains the TradingView reason, and warns that the result can include unhidden_strategies. This is exactly the sort of non-obvious behavior an agent needs to know.

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 no filler: the first states the core purpose, and the second packs the critical side effects, the reasoning, and the conditional result field. Every clause earns its place and the important caveats are front-loaded.

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 parameterless tool this is nearly complete: the agent knows what action it performs, what side effects to expect, and one conditional field in the result. A minor gap is that the full set of returned performance metrics is not enumerated, and there is no output schema to fill that in.

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 zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. Per the baseline rule for zero-parameter tools, this is a 4; the description does not need to compensate for missing param documentation.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource: 'Get strategy performance metrics from Strategy Tester.' This makes the tool's function immediately clear and differentiates it from sibling data_get_* tools that retrieve OHLCV, study values, or pine objects.

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?

'From Strategy Tester' provides clear context for when this tool is the right choice and separates it from the other data retrieval tools in the sibling list. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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