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. The description adds domain context — that records carry a resolution date and a scored result, and that forecasts are scored against a public series — but says nothing about volume, pagination, or freshness, which matters for a tool that claims to return 'every' forecast.

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 tight sentences with the resource content front-loaded and the filter directive last. No filler, though the parenthetical enumeration of forecast types is slightly list-like and could be trimmed.

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, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (forecast, scoring series, resolution date, result). With rich annotations and a single optional parameter, an agent has enough to invoke this correctly; only pagination/volume behavior is unaddressed.

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 100% and the single enum parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its default. The description's 'Filter by status' merely echoes that; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific resource — the archive of dated, checkable forecasts with their scoring series, resolution date, and result — which is more than a restatement of 'get_record'. It implicitly distinguishes this consolidated record from siblings like get_lead_times or get_price_bands, though it never names those siblings or states the contrast explicitly.

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?

Only 'Filter by status' is offered as usage guidance; there is no statement of when to reach for this tool over the narrower sibling getters, nor any exclusion or prerequisite. Usage is implied by the content description rather than spelled out.

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