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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one meaningful trait: the series is LTTB-downsampled, so the returned points are not raw ticks. It omits auth requirements, rate limits, and the return shape (timestamps/values), leaving real gaps for a data-read tool.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core noun phrase and the sampling caveat, with zero filler. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the sampling behavior but leaves the return format (what a data point contains) and any access prerequisites unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 restates the range bounds already visible in the enum ('1h through 90d') but adds no meaning about what the range controls, and says nothing about market_id.

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 resource (time-series probability history for a market) with a qualifier (LTTB-sampled) that distinguishes it from siblings like pax.probability_movers or pax.portfolio_history. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the verb+resource combination is unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no mention of when this is preferable to pax.probability_movers, pax.market_get, or pax.portfolio_history. The range bounds hint at applicability but give no selection criteria.

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