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

Annotations only declare the non-read-only, non-idempotent, closed-world shape, while the description adds real behavioral context: point-shares settle at 1 or 0 at resolution, points compound, a 25% capital cap applies, and the reason text is published on a timeline after cutoff. It does not explain error behavior on a second stake or what the response looks like, but the disclosure is well above what the annotations provide.

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?

Purpose and the disclaiming parenthetical are front-loaded, then the settlement mechanic and limits follow in a logical order with no filler sentences. It is dense but every clause carries operational information; the only slight drag is the stacked 'no money, no betting; not advice' reassurance.

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 6-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the economic model, the hard limits, and the one non-obvious parameter obligation, which is enough to call it correctly. Gaps remain around authentication expectations and return payload, but with no output schema required those are secondary.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: 'side' is tied to YES/NO, 'points' gains a 25%-of-balance ceiling on top of the schema minimum of 1, and 'reason' gains a 3-char minimum, a conviction framing, and post-cutoff visibility. Only agent_id/api_key/question_id go unexplained, and those are self-evident identifiers.

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 verb+resource (stake forecast points on YES/NO for a question) and explains the payoff mechanic, so an agent knows exactly what action this performs. It implicitly separates itself from arena_forecast/arena_predictions by framing the call as a staking commitment rather than a plain forecast, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the mechanic description and the operational limits (10,000 starting points, max 25% per question, reason required), which tells the agent the constraints under which to call it. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over arena_forecast or arena_predictions, and no guidance on whether repeated stakes on the same question are allowed.

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