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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without description help. The description adds the semantic constraint that only unresolved windows are returned, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, result count, or how 'sealed' resolution is determined. Modest added value against an already-complete annotation set.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and the scope. The parenthetical 'predictions on the public record that haven't happened yet' largely restates the preceding clause, and '(anteriority you can watch)' is atmospheric rather than informative, so it is efficient but not maximally tight.

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 parameters, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the core semantics of what set is returned. It stops short of describing return shape, ordering, or how many entries to expect, which an agent listing results would reasonably want, but nothing critical for invocation 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to carry; the baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4. The description correctly introduces no phantom inputs or filtering options that would need documenting.

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 gives a specific verb+resource pair: 'List sealed forecasts whose window has NOT yet resolved', and the scoping clause (unresolved window) implicitly differentiates it from the sibling search_sealed_forecasts. However, it never names or contrasts with that sibling, so an agent must infer the boundary. Clear but not sibling-differentiated by explicit reference.

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?

Usage is implied by the filter definition — you call this when you want unresolved/public-record forecasts rather than resolved ones — but there is no explicit 'use this instead of X when Y', no exclusions, and no mention of when the sibling search_sealed_forecasts is preferable. Implied context only.

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