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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds the meaningful data coverage constraint that only followed resolved markets are included, plus the price and days-before-close breakdown, but does not add further behavioral detail such as time window or pagination.

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 filler. It conveys the metric, grouping dimensions, and data subset efficiently.

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 zero parameters, read-only annotations, and an output schema, the description is largely complete for the tool's complexity. It identifies the dataset and scope but does not mention any time window or coverage limitations beyond followed resolved markets.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to clarify. The empty schema is consistent with the description's no-input nature, making the baseline score 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?

Describes a specific analytical dataset: how often prediction markets at each price came true, broken down by days before close, limited to followed resolved markets. An agent can identify the resource, though the description lacks an explicit verb and does not differentiate it from siblings by name.

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 scope phrase 'from the markets DataSnack follows that have resolved' implies the appropriate use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative tools.

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