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

Beyond readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint, it discloses that no credits are spent ("This tool never asks"), that an empty list is valid DATA rather than an error, and that a degraded upstream returns a typed refusal instead of an invented row. That is substantive behavioral context annotations cannot express; it omits rate limits and any auth/prerequisite notes.

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 routing are front-loaded and tight, but the parenthetical enumeration of 51 question IDs is bloated and partially redundant (X05, X06, X07, X08, X09 each repeated multiple times), which reads as an artifact rather than information. The core message would survive without it.

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 so return values need not be re-explained, and with zero input parameters the remaining burden is scope, ordering, cost and failure semantics — all of which are covered. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description carries no parameter burden and correctly adds none. The returned field names it lists ({question_id, asset, question_label, decision_id, predicted, horizon_end}) are output, not input, semantics.

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 defines its domain term explicitly ("open clocks: the pending decisions across the AVAILABLE questions ... and canonical assets") and states the scope, ordering ("soonest horizon_end first") and delivery form ("served as one call"). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings it names, tollbridge_blotter and tollbridge_decision.

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?

It names the alternatives and the conditions that select them: "For MORE than the canonical three assets use tollbridge_blotter" and "only ask via tollbridge_decision once the question is terminal." It also states the correct workflow (sleep until the soonest horizon_end, re-read) so an agent knows when not to poll.

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