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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses ordering (date order), the metric returned (current blended probabilities), the underlying HTTP endpoint, and the $0.01 x402 cost along with docs — good transparency for a paid read API. However it says nothing about freshness/latency, pagination, or why a 'delayed' sibling exists, so an agent cannot judge staleness of the probabilities.

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 operational details (ordering, probabilities, endpoint, price, docs) are front-loaded and useful, but the first two sentences say essentially the same thing twice ('Upcoming science and technology event resolutions' / 'Upcoming science and technology market resolutions in date order...'), which is avoidable bloat.

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 simple list tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what comes back ('same shape as /v1/calendar') and the cost of calling it. It falls short on param semantics and on freshness/pagination behavior, so an agent has enough to decide to call it but not to call it precisely.

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 adds nothing about either parameter: the required `days` window (range 1–90, default 14) and the `category` enum are left entirely unexplained. The only hint is 'in date order,' which does not convey the day-window semantics, and it is unclear what `category` means for an already pre-filtered tool.

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 names a specific resource (science/tech market resolutions) and scope (pre-filtered calendar of upcoming events, in date order, with blended probabilities), which clearly separates it from the generic probability_calendar. It even states the relationship to the sibling explicitly ('Same shape as /v1/calendar, pre-filtered to science and technology markets'), though the first two sentences restate the same idea.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'the forward calendar ... an agent can position around' and 'pre-filtered' hint that you pick this over probability_calendar when you want sci-tech only, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not is given. Notably it never addresses that probability_calendar already accepts a category enum containing 'science-tech', which is the key alternative an agent would weigh.

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