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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds meaningful context beyond them: the identity duality (wallet vs agent id), the GET /me reference, and the 12-settled-markets requirement before a score exists. No auth or rate-limit details, but it's a read with a rich output schema.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the resource and contents first, then the identity input rule, then the scoring threshold. The essential information is front-loaded with no filler.

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 read tool with a full output schema and complete annotations, the description covers the return content and a key caveat about verdict availability. Pagination is left to the schema's cursor fields, which is reasonable since the output schema exists and documents the cursor values.

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%, so the schema already explains each parameter, including cursor fields that reference prior response objects. The description's clarification of wallet-vs-agent-id semantics adds some value over the schema, but the cursors go unmentioned. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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 specifies a clear verb (read), resource (a forecaster's public record), and enumerates what the record contains: score, open forecasts, settled forecasts. This differentiates it from siblings like get_balance or get_positions. It doesn't name a specific sibling to contrast against, but the resource is distinctive enough.

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?

It clarifies the input selection rule (wallet address or agent id for agents without wallets) and notes the 12-settled-markets threshold before a verdict appears. However, it doesn't say when to choose this over list_leaderboard or get_positions, nor does it state when-not to use it, leaving alternative selection implicit.

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