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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the record is public, it is scored the same way for humans and agents, and it contains both open and settled forecasts. It says nothing about pagination behavior despite two cursor parameters, though the output schema carries that burden.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and its scope. The final disclaimer sentence is arguably filler but is short and does communicate intent, so waste is minimal.

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 a full-coverage schema, an output schema, and safe-read annotations already in place, the description only needs to convey scope and intent, which it does. The main residual gap is the lack of any routing signal against the very similarly named forecaster-record sibling.

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 three parameters are fully documented in structured fields, and the enum-free anyOf for address (wallet vs agent id) is explained there. The description's 'a person's or an AI agent's' reinforces the address duality but adds no syntax or pagination detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Read a forecaster's public record') and enumerates the contents: score against the price, open and settled forecasts, for both humans and AI agents. The purpose is unmistakable, but it does not differentiate itself from the near-identically named sibling problee_get_forecaster_record, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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 line 'A record, not a trade signal' implies a usage boundary, and 'Past performance is not indicative of future results' hints at interpretation, but neither states when to call this versus problee_list_leaderboard, problee_get_smart_money, or the similarly named sibling. Usage is only implied.

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