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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but the description adds cost ($0.002/call), latency/effort profile (cached, no waiting, no LLM call), and freshness semantics (recomputed daily). These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs for a polling tool and are not derivable from the structured fields.

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-loaded with the resource and contents, then usage, then the sibling alternative. Despite being dense, every clause carries distinct information (coverage, fields returned, slug behavior, cost, routing) with no filler or repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns, and it does: probability, 80% interval, base rate, market odds, edge, commitment hash, plus drivers/failure modes/history when a slug is given. Cost, caching, and routing are all present, so nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description goes further by explaining the semantic difference between passing a slug (one forecast with full drivers, failure modes, and history) versus omitting it (the whole board). This adds outcome-level meaning beyond the schema's terse 'Omit for the whole board'.

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 (the oracle's standing questions, recomputed daily) and enumerates exactly what the board covers: BTC/ETH/SOL price targets, FOMC, Polymarket markets, CPI/NFP. It distinguishes itself from the sibling oracle_forecast by naming the differentiator (standing questions vs. your own question).

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 tells the agent when to use it ('today's standing forecasts without waiting') and names the alternative with the selecting condition ('to ask your own question use oracle_forecast'). Adds a polling pattern ('poll in a loop for cheap calibrated priors'), which is direct usage guidance.

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