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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds useful defaults ('the last week by default') and an interpretation caveat ('evidence about the past, never a forecast'), but never explains the non-read-only side effect implied by readOnlyHint=false, leaving a behavioral gap.

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 front-loaded sentences with no waste: the first states the action and returns, the second the trigger, the third the interpretive caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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 compensates by naming what comes back (trade count, R, null comparison) and the default window. It is nearly complete for a two-parameter tool, missing only an account of the state change implied by its non-read-only annotation.

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% for both parameters, so the schema carries the parameter semantics (market enum, seed_hash provenance). The description only adds the internal 'last week' default, which is not even an exposed parameter, so it does not meaningfully exceed the schema.

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 ('walk a forged machine over the real tape') and names the concrete outputs (trade count, R, random-null comparison). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling forecast tool ('never a forecast') and ties itself to forge, so an agent can tell it apart from neighbours.

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 trigger and sequencing rule: 'Call it after a forge when the trader wants to know whether the rule actually fires.' It contrasts with forecast, but stops short of naming forecast as the alternative to use when a forward-looking answer is wanted.

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