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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description is consistent with that by saying it returns a message to sign rather than publishing directly. It adds useful behavioral detail beyond annotations, including the EIP-191 personal_sign scheme, use of the agent's trading key, and the market-close deadline.

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 tight sentences, front-loads the return value and signing method, and uses the second sentence only to explain why forecasts matter and when to publish. No sentence is wasted.

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 three-parameter preparation tool with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential missing pieces: what it returns, how signing works, and the timing constraint. No output schema exists, and the description adequately explains the returned signing message.

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 100%, so agentId, marketId, and probability are already documented by the schema. The description reinforces that the forecast concerns a market probability but does not add syntax or meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific output and action: it returns the exact message to sign with the agent's trading key in order to publish a market probability. This clearly separates it from submit_forecast, which would submit an already-signed forecast.

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 gives clear usage context: call it when preparing a forecast to publish, and publish before the market closes. It does not explicitly name submit_forecast as the next step or state when not to use this tool, so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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