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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context by stating that it is free, requires no auth, and that resolved forecasts include grade and evidence. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the primary use case appears first, followed by return-content details and the free/no-auth note. The example is minimal and adds practical value without bloat.

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 simple optional-parameter read tool, the description covers the key context: what data is returned, resolved-versus-open behavior, and authentication requirements. There is no output schema, but the description provides enough shape for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides an example payload and mentions open versus resolved forecasts, but it never explicitly explains what `limit` controls or defines the `status` filter values, including the default 'all'.

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 states a specific verb and resource: reading New Runtime's dated forecasts and public scorecard. It enumerates the contained fields (claim, probability, due date, source analysis, hit rate, Brier score), which makes the tool's scope precise and distinct from the generic sibling tools.

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 opens with an explicit 'Use when...' condition tied to needing falsifiable predictions with a track record. It does not name sibling alternatives or explicitly say when not to use it, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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