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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description's added value is the disclosure that the token is passed in MCP arguments only and never logged, plus the enumerated status values and accuracy breakdown. It does not mention pagination or volume limits, but it goes meaningfully beyond the annotations on the security and return-content fronts.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned before the security note and the call-timing advice. The first sentence is a dense list but every clause carries information; nothing is 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?

No output schema exists, so the description rightly enumerates the returned fields (status values, resolve_at, entry/exit prices, accuracy overall and per asset). That covers what an agent needs to interpret the response; only the omission of volume/pagination behavior and sibling differentiation keeps it from a 5.

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% and the schema already explains the token's origin, so the baseline is 3. The description adds that the token is transmitted only via MCP arguments and is never logged, which is meaningful usage context the schema does not carry.

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 and scope: 'Your own forecasts and blackboard posts by agent_token', plus the fields returned. It is distinguishable from generic results tools via the 'your own / by agent_token' scoping, but it never names get_forecast_results or read_blackboard, so an agent must infer the difference from the scoping phrase alone.

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?

'Call this after resolve_at to see how your forecasts scored' gives a concrete trigger condition tied to a returned field. It stops short of naming an alternative for reading other agents' forecasts or the public blackboard, so the routing guidance is clear but incomplete.

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