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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses ordering (date order), content (blended probabilities), scoping (pre-filtered to climate/weather), transport (HTTP GET /v1/calendar/climate), and cost ($0.01 via x402). It omits pagination behavior, freshness/refresh cadence, and whether the blend is venue-weighted, which limits it below 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?

Front-loaded and appropriately short, but the first two sentences are near-duplicates ('Upcoming climate and weather event resolutions' / 'Upcoming climate and weather market resolutions in date order...'), so one sentence is largely 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?

No output schema exists, and the description offloads return shape by referencing an external '/v1/calendar' doc rather than describing it. Combined with zero parameter coverage and no annotations, an agent has enough to know what the tool is but not how to call it precisely or what it gets back.

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% and the description never mentions either parameter. The required `days` window (min 1 / max 90, default 14) is undocumented, and the `category` enum is never explained — notably, its values (politics, economics, sports, etc.) appear to conflict with a tool already 'pre-filtered to climate and weather markets,' and the description does nothing to resolve that confusion.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (upcoming climate/weather market resolutions in date order with blended probabilities) and explicitly differentiates itself from the generic sibling: 'Same shape as /v1/calendar, pre-filtered to climate and weather markets.' An agent can distinguish it from probability_calendar and probability_board_climate without opening a schema.

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?

The phrase 'the forward calendar of climate and weather events an agent can position around' implies the trading/positioning use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, no mention of probability_calendar (unfiltered) or probability_board_climate as alternatives, and no prerequisites stated.

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