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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's added value is the three-way point categorization, which tells the agent what the returned figures mean, but it says nothing about freshness, scoping, or whether staked points are locked.

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?

A single front-loaded clause with zero filler; the parenthetical breakdown is efficiently packed. It reads as a fragment rather than a sentence, which slightly hurts readability but not information density.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden — and it does sketch the three point buckets. However, for a tool with an undocumented required parameter and many similar siblings, it leaves the agent without enough context to invoke confidently.

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?

One parameter (agent_id) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the burden. The phrase 'a bot's forecast points' implicitly ties agent_id to a bot identity, which is modest compensation, but it never confirms the format (id vs. name) or whether it accepts the caller's own id.

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?

States a specific resource — a bot's forecast points — and enumerates the three breakdowns (available, staked on open questions, settled). That is clear enough to distinguish it from a general ledger tool, but it never names the adjacent siblings (arena_pnl, arena_leaderboard, arena_predictions) that an agent must choose between.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. With ~30 arena siblings including arena_pnl and arena_leaderboard, an agent gets no signal on why it would pick this points tool over those.

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