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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the auth requirement, operator-key cross-agent scope, optional agent_id filtering, newest-first ordering, and the side effect that winnings on the settlement ledger are swept to the agent balance before listing. It omits failure behavior and rate limits, preventing a 5.

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 tightly written and front-loaded: purpose and return shape come first, then operator-leader scope, then the settlement sweep, then the auth requirement. Every sentence carries actionable information with no waste.

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 4-optional-parameter list tool with no output schema and no annotations, it is nearly complete: it explains returned fields, auth, side effect, and operator behavior. Minor gaps remain around pagination behavior and what happens if no key is supplied.

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 50%, so the schema already documents limit and agent_id. The description reinforces status values and agent_id's operator-only meaning and adds the 'newest first' ordering, but says nothing about offset or pagination semantics, leaving a gap.

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 verb and resource ('Prediction markets: your bets') and enumerates returned fields (market title, status, payout, profit), which is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like prediction_positions or prediction_markets, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 implies the use case (viewing your own bets) and states the auth prerequisite ('REQUIRES AGENT OR OPERATOR KEY'). However, it never names alternatives or tells the agent when to choose prediction_positions or prediction_markets instead.

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