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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description goes beyond them by disclosing the immutability guarantee ('chosen once and never edited') and the verification mechanism (`selectionHash` recomputable from market ids, week, ruleset). That is genuine behavioral context an agent could not infer from the annotations, though nothing is said about freshness or how the week boundary is determined.

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?

The core fact (this week's fixed scored set plus window close) is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the following sentences each add distinct value about scoring and immutability. The `selectionHash` sentence is slightly dense but not padding.

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 an output schema present and no parameters, the description need not explain return values, and it covers immutability and the deadline adequately. The remaining gap is routing: with `problee_list_scoring_cohort` sitting alongside it, the definition leaves the agent guessing which cohort tool is authoritative for this week.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds useful framing by explaining that `selectionHash` is derived from the market ids, week, and ruleset, clarifying a returned field even though there is no input to document.

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 precise resource: this week's fixed set of scored questions plus the instant the scoring window closes, which is more specific than the title alone. However, it never distinguishes itself from the near-identical sibling `problee_list_scoring_cohort` (or `problee_get_current_season`), so an agent cannot tell from the text which of the two cohort tools to pick.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Call any of them: a call that settles is scored' tells the agent what to do with the returned markets and the deadline framing hints at calling before the window closes. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative despite an obvious overlapping sibling.

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