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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that the tool returns decomposition with sample sizes and hit rates, notes that scoring is priced-in while conceding moves price, and clarifies it is descriptive not advisory. This provides excellent transparency.

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 two sentences plus a disclaimer, each sentence earning its place. It front-loads the key concept and efficiently conveys the tool's value and limitations without redundancy.

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 one optional parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is thorough: it explains the concept, what is returned, the underlying insight, and uniqueness. No gaps remain for effective use.

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 100% and the only parameter 'minute_bucket' is fully defined in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation.

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: analyzing how a fan token reacts when its team scores vs concedes, with market adjustment and decomposition. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it requires the token<->team map, making its purpose unique.

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 implicitly indicates usage for exploring scored vs conceded asymmetry, and includes 'Descriptive history, not advice' as a usage caveat. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, though the unique capability is highlighted.

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