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

Annotations establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: the prediction 'resolves itself from board state' (no manual settlement step) and 'only you see how it came out' (private outcome). These are genuinely useful traits not derivable from annotations.

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 tightly packed sentences with no filler; the core purpose leads and the self-resolution/privacy traits follow. Nothing is wasted.

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-behavior burden and does so adequately by explaining the prediction self-resolves from board state and the outcome is visible only to the caller. It is nearly complete, missing only guidance on how/when outcomes are surfaced.

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%, so the schema already documents all six parameters and the baseline is 3. The description's only added parameter detail is the confidence range '0.5 to 0.99', which actually conflicts with the schema's stated 0–1 bounds, so it adds confusion rather than clarity.

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?

Names a specific verb (predict) and enumerates the three subject types it covers (amendment ratification, rung satisfaction, reality request fulfillment), which maps cleanly to sibling write tools like propose_amendment, submit_rung and post_reality_request. It is clear what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself against sibling read/reporting tools such as my_calibration or agent_track_record.

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 never states when to record a prediction versus when to use adjacent tools (my_calibration, agent_track_record, act_on_reality), nor does it name any alternative. Usage is only implied by the subject types mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the triggering condition.

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