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

Goes well beyond the annotations: append-only storage, same-instant price capture, Brier scoring on resolution, public scoreboard exposure, no edits or deletions, and free of charge. These are exactly the mutation consequences an agent needs before writing.

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?

Front-loaded with what the tool does and the scoring model, then parameter constraints. Two dense sentences plus a constraint sentence; slightly heavy but every clause carries information (immutability, public exposure, id source).

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be explained. Combined with annotations and schema, the description covers lifecycle (append-only, no delete/revise), format constraints, and the market_id acquisition path, leaving no gap for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: 'outcome must match one of the market's outcomes' and the public-record role of forecaster_id. The 0.01-0.99 range repeats the schema but reinforces the constraint.

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 ('submit YOUR probability forecast on a live prediction market') plus the resulting artifact (public audited track record). It is clearly distinguishable from read-only siblings like get_forecaster_record and get_market_odds.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to list_trending_markets for a market_id and states the operation is free and irreversible. It gives clear context for when to call it, though it does not name an alternative submission path or a when-not-to-use condition.

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