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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the forecast is free, unranked, sealed/commit-reveal, and will become a public Brier observation after settlement. It does not describe response or reveal mechanics, but the key side effects are more transparent than a typical mutation tool.

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 short sentences front-load the tool's core purpose and provide the most actionable guidance (prerequisite and honest p setting). No filler or repeated schema boilerplate.

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 five-parameter action with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the critical prerequisites and p semantics. The main residual gap is that 'commit-reveal' is not expanded into an explicit follow-up/reveal step, but an agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly.

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 high (80%), so baseline is 3; the description adds meaningful context for p by explaining the probability range, the tie to the chosen side, the honesty requirement, and the Brier scoring consequence. It does not need to re-explain handle/target/stake since the schema already covers those.

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 names a specific action ('fire'), a resource ('free unranked sealed commit-reveal forecast'), and differentiates it from ranked paths via 'unranked' and 'demo.' It also states the prerequisite by name ('First call ratchet_new_demo'), so an agent can distinguish this from ratchet_ranked_submit.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent the ordering constraint ('First call ratchet_new_demo') and signals that this is the demo/unranked path, contrasting with ranked siblings. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but 'free unranked' plus the named prerequisite gives clear enough context.

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