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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral scope beyond that: it only returns terminal (settled or voided) rounds, sorts newest first, and names specific snapshots/fields, giving an agent a concrete idea of what the call returns.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the most important distinction (terminal rounds) then the included fields, with zero filler. Appropriate length for the tool's complexity.

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 read-only, no-output-schema list tool, the description covers what the call returns (fields and ordering) while the schema covers parameters and annotations cover safety. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call it or parse the result is missing.

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%, with both pool and limit documented in the input schema including defaults and range. The description adds no parameter details, but the schema carries the full burden, so 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?

Description uses a specific verb (Get), names the resource (BTC prediction pool terminal rounds), and enumerates returned data (P0/P1 snapshots, winning price/distance, winners count, pool size) plus ordering (newest first). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling get_btc_pool_state, which would represent current pool state.

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 appropriate use for settled/voided history but never explicitly states when to prefer it over get_btc_pool_state or other history tools. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, so the context is clear but not fully explicit.

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