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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It correctly signals a mutation ('Record ... signed') and discloses the authentication dependency and its source endpoint, which are useful. It says nothing about idempotency, what happens on a duplicate run_id, validation failures, or what a successful record looks like.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler; the key action and binding come first. The second sentence is a bare parameter list that largely duplicates the schema, which is slightly wasteful but short.

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?

A 7-required-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters needs far more: field semantics, expected formats, and failure behavior. The description covers intent and auth but leaves most of what an agent needs to invoke it correctly unspecified.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only repeats parameter names verbatim. Meaningless-to-an-agent fields like p, cost_est, and duration_est get no explanation of units or semantics (probability? percentile? seconds? dollars?). Only api_token gains meaning via its provenance note.

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+resource: 'Record a signed forecast bound to run_id.' This is concrete enough that an agent understands it writes a forecast record. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like fcl_calibration or fcl_weight, so sibling differentiation is absent.

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 gives one real prerequisite — api_token must come from POST /register — which is genuine usage context. But it never says when to use this versus the other fcl_* tools, nor what conditions make recording a forecast appropriate or inappropriate.

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