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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the listing fee goes to the fee pool, which is a side effect, but it does not state whether the action is reversible, any permissions required, error conditions, or what happens after creation. It also does not explain the 'source' mechanism in behavioral terms (e.g., how truth is determined). This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 verbose and flowery ('the same discipline as acceptance criteria before work'), which adds no practical value. The key details (question, source, close time, fee) could be stated in a single concise sentence. It is not front-loaded; the critical information is buried mid-sentence.

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?

This is a creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 5 undocumented parameters. The description should explain all inputs and expected outcomes, but it does not clarify creator or network, nor does it describe return values or potential errors. An agent would likely need to inspect other tools or guess to use this correctly.

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 schema coverage is 0%, so the description must explain all parameters. It mentions question, source, and closesAt (as 'when the window closes') but omits creator and network entirely. It does not specify formats or constraints for any parameter (e.g., date format for closesAt, valid source types). The description adds some meaning but falls short of compensating for the schema gap.

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 clearly states it opens a prediction market (a yes/no question, a source, and a close time), which is specific enough to distinguish from betting or resolving. It's not a tautology, but the verb+resource could be clearer (e.g., 'creates a new prediction market'). The flowery language slightly obscures but doesn't defeat the purpose.

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 implies it is for creating a market (as opposed to betting or resolving), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like bet_prediction or resolve_prediction. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing an account) or when not to use it. The guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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