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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: 'Shared Pyth context is open and read-only,' invalid seals 'debit no credits,' settlement VOID 'refunds the full stake,' and 'no private key is sent to RatchetX.' This fully discloses safety, economic outcomes, and security posture.

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 sentences cover purpose, credit/debit behavior, refunds, return value, and signing security without redundancy. The most important action is front-loaded in the first sentence, and supporting details follow in a logical order.

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?

The description is largely complete given the moderate complexity: it explains eligibility, credit effects, refund behavior, and the local signing flow. There is no output schema, but the return payload is described. The main gap is not pointing to the next step, ratchet_ranked_submit, and not clarifying side semantics, but these are minor for actually invoking this tool.

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 60%, with stake, target, and wallet already described in the input schema. The tool description adds minimal parameter-level meaning: 'bounded forecast' hints at the p range, and 'stakes existing play credits' reinforces stake semantics. It does not clarify side or p beyond what the schema constraints imply, so it earns the baseline without strong compensation.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Prepare a bounded forecast for an already-registered ranked wallet.' It also specifies a concrete deliverable, 'the exact domain-separated payload to sign locally,' which differentiates it from related tools like ratchet_ranked_submit. It could be stronger by naming the sibling tool explicitly, but the purpose 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?

The description implies when the tool is appropriate—after wallet registration and before local signing—and provides preconditions like 'already-registered ranked wallet.' It also explains behavioral consequences around credits and refunds. However, it never explicitly contrasts this tool with alternatives such as ratchet_ranked_submit, so an agent must infer the exact workflow placement.

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