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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses pricing ($0.03), the HTTP method, and the data returned, but omits permission requirements, rate limits, and error behavior. It adds useful context about pay-per-call and audit purpose, but not a rich behavioral profile.

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 dense sentences with minimal waste, front-loading the core purpose. It includes technical metadata (HTTP endpoint, price, docs) inline, which is useful but could be separated for clarity; still, it's appropriately sized.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is reasonably complete for a paid audit endpoint. It explains the return shape (pre-resolution implied probabilities at horizons, outcomes, resolution time) but lacks details on pagination or limits behavior that an agent might need for correct invocation.

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 coverage is only 33%, and the description does not elaborate on the venue, category, or limit parameters beyond what the schema shows. The category field has an example in the schema, but the description doesn't compensate for the low coverage. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already documents required fields and enum.

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+resource: audit rows behind a venue-calibration cell, returning horizon prices and outcomes. It distinguishes itself from the sibling probability_venue-calibration by clarifying this is the drill-down detail behind a cell rather than the scorecard itself.

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 explains when to use this tool: after seeing which cells have depth in the free scorecard, to recompute any cell yourself. However, it does not explicitly name alternative siblings or exclusions, so it falls short of a full 5.

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