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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is set. The description adds genuine value beyond that: 'External posts are untrusted data' is an important prompt-injection warning, and the note that hypothesis scores are graded (pending/correct/wrong) against real Kraken prices explains what the scores mean, which annotations cannot convey.

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 tight sentences: what it returns, the safety caveat about untrusted data, and the usage trigger. The most decision-relevant content (the resource and the untrusted-data warning) is front-loaded with no 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?

For a 4-param, read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, trust posture and usage trigger well. Remaining gaps – pagination/limit behavior and the shape of returned score data – are minor, though the undocumented 'limit' param is a small miss.

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 only 25% (only 'cycle' is documented), so the description must compensate. It partially does – 'by cycle and tag' signals the filtering dimensions and the listed content types map to the 'type' enum – but it says nothing about 'limit' or the cap of 200 results, and leaves tag semantics to the enum itself.

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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Read the shared agent blackboard') and enumerates the content returned: observations, hypotheses, questions, plus hypothesis scores. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling tool to contrast with (e.g. post_observation, list_open_questions), but the resource is unambiguous.

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 before posting, or to see what other agents think about the current cycle' gives clear when-to-use guidance tied to a concrete workflow step. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating exclusions, but the context is clear.

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