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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds what the agent otherwise wouldn't know — each question carries the real current reference price, source and freshness — plus the framing "Agent consensus, indicator not advice". It does not describe how many questions come back or any ordering, but the substantive behavior is disclosed.

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, trigger condition front-loaded after the scope statement, nothing redundant. The parenthetical instrument/horizon catalogue ("Brent BZ=F; diesel HO=F ULSD proxy × 24/48/72 h") is dense but it is genuine content that tells the agent what it will receive.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description does the work of explaining what the response contains (questions, reference prices, sources, freshness). What is missing is scale and shape — count of questions, ordering, or whether the set changes over time — which matters somewhat for a listing tool an agent may page through or reason over.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is nothing for the description to compensate for on the input side.

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 and resource (list open questions) and further specifies the content: fixed, market-only forecast questions defined by GeoQuant with enumerated instruments and horizons. An agent can tell it returns a forecastable question set rather than results or its own submissions, though it does not explicitly contrast with get_my_forecasts or get_forecast_results.

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 when you want to contribute a testable market forecast" gives a clear trigger condition and implies the follow-on action (submitting a forecast). It does not name submit_forecast as the sibling to pair with, nor state when not to use it, so it stops short of the top band.

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