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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: results are publication-gated, sub-floor buckets return counts with published: false, and 'n too small' is data rather than an error — critical for correct result interpretation.

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?

Single dense sentence with the key framing ('FREE', 'per question') front-loaded and no filler. It is somewhat clause-heavy, but each clause carries new information about output shape or gating behavior.

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?

An output schema exists and the description still usefully characterizes the returned buckets and the published-flag semantics. However, the undocumented 'subject' parameter and the absence of any use-case routing leave clear gaps for a tool with two inputs.

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 description coverage is 0% for both parameters. The description's 'per question' only obliquely implies question_id (whose enum values are self-describing), and the 'subject' parameter is never mentioned or defined anywhere, leaving it fully undocumented.

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 deliverable — a reliability calibration keyed per question, returning decile buckets with a predicted-band midpoint and realized empirical frequency. An agent can tell it is a read-only reporting tool rather than a market-state or decision tool. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the many tollbridge_* siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative among the 33 siblings. 'FREE' and 'No payment required' hint that it is cheap to call, but that is a cost note, not usage guidance.

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