public

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: claims come with a cited source page, the response includes a census by status, and uncited claims are counted but never served as sourced. That last point is a real output-shaping constraint not visible in any structured field.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the use condition, then the key behavioral caveat. No filler; every sentence carries information the agent needs.

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 does the work of describing returns: claims with URL plus quoted passage, and a census of verified/cited/uncited counts. It does not mention pagination or ordering, though limit/offset in the schema imply it. Adequate for a simple read tool, with a small remaining gap.

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%, so all five parameters are already documented in the schema, including the status enum and the limit/offset pagination. The description only loosely echoes status via 'verified, cited or uncited' and adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('get the evidence claims behind a published future-space'), and narrows the scope precisely to claims 'that carry a cited source page (URL + quoted passage)'. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_public_forecasts, get_public_scenarios, or get_public_tensions without opening any schema.

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?

Gives an explicit use condition: 'Use when you need quotable, source-backed facts on a covered topic.' It also implies an exclusion ('Uncited claims are counted, never served as sourced'), telling the agent this tool will not return uncited claims as sources. No sibling is named as an alternative, so it stops 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.

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world; the description adds useful behavior beyond them by disclosing the append-only registry nature and what each entry contains (advance-stated probability/threshold/date plus resolution and Brier score).

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, front-loaded with the resource definition and trailing with the usage trigger; dense but no filler, though the long first sentence packs several concepts that could be split.

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 usefully enumerates the return fields, and annotations cover the safety profile; the only minor gap is not explaining how status values map to the returned entries.

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%, so both parameters (slug, status enum) are already documented with the default and allowed values; the description adds no extra syntax or meaning beyond that baseline.

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 (get) and resource (append-only forecast registry of a published future-space) and enumerates the returned content (probability, threshold, date, resolution, Brier score), which cleanly separates it from siblings like get_public_claims and get_public_scenarios.

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?

Gives explicit triggering contexts – questions about DSGHT's forecast reliability or the dated checkable predictions a space makes – but does not name alternative tools or state when to prefer them (e.g. get_public_scenarios).

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