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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the return format (model probability, market price, edge) and includes an example output, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not explicitly state non-destructiveness or any safety aspects.

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?

The description is well-structured with a clear purpose, trigger list, output description, and example. It is concise but could be slightly tighter by removing redundant wording.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, the description provides adequate context for usage and output but lacks parameter documentation. The output schema exists but its content is unknown; the description covers the gist of the return fields.

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%. The description only mentions platform and min_edge in an example, leaving limit, query, and evidence_top_k unexplained. With low coverage, the description should add meaning for all parameters, but it does not.

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?

Clearly states the tool finds mispriced or interesting markets, with specific trigger phrases and a distinction from evaluating a specific market. Names the sibling tool foresea_analyze_market as the alternative.

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 says when to use (user wants to find trading opportunities) and when not to (evaluating a specific market, directs to foresea_analyze_market). Provides example triggers and a sample invocation.

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