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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It implies a read-only operation ('List') and provides a pagination mechanism, which is behavioral. However, it doesn't mention any auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens with invalid cursors. It's minimal but covers the essential read pattern, earning a baseline 3.

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 sentences with no fluff. The primary action is front-loaded, and the pagination instruction is directly appended. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly concise and efficient.

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 simple list tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core purpose and pagination. However, it omits details about 'limit' behavior, result ordering, or what constitutes 'recent'. While not critical, these gaps prevent it from being fully complete for an agent that needs to call it correctly.

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 clarifies that 'cursor' is a pagination token ('Pass next_cursor as cursor'), adding meaning beyond the schema. However, it gives no explanation for 'limit' (e.g., page size, default), leaving that parameter semantically empty. Partial compensation warrants a 3.

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?

Description states a clear verb ('List') and resource ('recent public resolutions'), which distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_prediction' (singular) and 'get_open_predictions' (open vs. recent). The qualifier 'recent public' adds specificity, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions pagination ('Pass next_cursor as cursor to read the next page') but gives no context for selecting this tool over siblings like get_prediction or get_leaderboard. It fails to outline the intended use case or any exclusions.

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