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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description usefully adds that the result is private ('Visible only to you') and explicitly not a ranking. It does not cover pagination or return format, but for a safe read tool this is solid added context.

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?

Front-loads the purpose in the opening line, then adds scoping, then a next-step pointer, with no filler. The all-caps opener is slightly stylized but does not waste words.

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 carries the return-value burden and does describe the grouped-by-confidence accuracy output, plus the aggregate mode. Combined with annotations covering safety, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though a hint on the default view would help.

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 100% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the same 'aggregate pooled view' phrasing used in the description. The description adds no syntax, default, or format detail beyond the schema, 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?

States a specific verb and resource (shows your own predictions/calibration) and describes the grouping by confidence with hit-rates. It is distinguishable from siblings like agent_track_record and get_scoreboard by scoping strictly to the caller's own prediction accuracy.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent onward ('NEXT: record_prediction to make a new one') and explains the aggregate view trigger. It lacks any when-NOT guidance (e.g. vs agent_track_record or get_scoreboard), so it stops short of full alternative disambiguation.

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