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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured fields. The description adds only the scope constraint 'from today forward', which usefully clarifies default behavior relative to include_past, but discloses nothing about pagination, ordering, or empty-result handling. Given the strong annotation coverage, this is a modest but real contribution.

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 trigger condition is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the return payload in a single dense sentence. The enumeration of returned fields is somewhat long but earns its place because no output schema exists to document the response shape.

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?

With no output schema, the description must describe the return shape, and it does so thoroughly: date and precision, status, event, resolver, and story with URLs. Combined with full annotation coverage and 80% schema coverage, an agent has enough to call this correctly, though filtering behavior for the 5 optional parameters is left entirely to the schema.

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 80% across 5 parameters, so the schema itself documents most fields, including one enum. The description mentions no parameter names or semantics; it only implies the forward-looking window via 'from today forward', which loosely maps to window_days/include_past. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the load.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: it returns 'the dated tests that will settle each story, from today forward' and enumerates the fields (date, precision, status, event, resolver, story, URL). This is clearly a forward-looking docket of resolution events, which implicitly separates it from siblings like results or tape. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

'Use when the user asks what will decide a dispute, what to watch, or the next dated test' gives three concrete triggering intents, which is strong positive guidance. However, it offers no when-not conditions and does not point to an alternative sibling for adjacent questions such as what already happened.

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