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

Annotations cover the safety profile (non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description adds high-value context beyond them: forecast finality on first submission and that receipts are sealed into a public hash chain within the hour. It does not mention the 60-item batch cap or failure modes.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying a distinct and useful fact, with the core action front-loaded. No filler or repetition of the name/title.

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?

With no output schema, the description responsibly summarizes the return (receipts sealed into the hash chain) and discloses the finality rule. It omits the batch limit and reason field, which are minor relative to the mutation and timing behavior it does cover.

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 coverage is 50% and the schema itself defines the nested p/id/reason fields well. The description adds only 'one or more' (batch intent) and the probability framing; it does not add meaning to api_key or the reason field. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: committing a probability for one or more open questions. It clearly pairs with the open_questions sibling conceptually, though it never names a sibling tool to route against. An agent knows exactly what operation this performs.

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?

Implies usage (you forecast on open questions after retrieving them) but does not state when to use this versus alternatives. The constraint 'Your first forecast on a question is final' is a genuine usage rule, but there is no explicit when-not or pointer to another tool.

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