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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it lists unsettled markets and that passing judge filters results, implying a read operation. However, it doesn't explicitly state side effects, authentication requirements beyond the judge parameter, or any rate limits. It's adequate but not rich.

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, no waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by the optional filtering behavior. Clear and efficient.

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 simple listing tool with two optional params and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and the main parameter. It lacks explicit mention of output format or pagination, but given the simplicity, it's nearly complete.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains the judge parameter's role ('Pass your account as judge') but doesn't detail format or defaults. The limit parameter is self-explanatory but not elaborated. Adds some value beyond the bare schema, but not fully comprehensive.

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 the tool returns markets with closed windows that nobody has settled, and explains the optional judge parameter filters to those the caller may resolve. This distinguishes it from siblings like my_positions or list_predictions.

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?

It explains the judge parameter's purpose and the filtering logic (excluding own markets and positions), giving clear context for when to use it. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the purpose is well-defined.

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