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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, not open-world), so the description earns credit for adding real behavioral context: a 2-day re-scoring cadence and exactly which derived fields accompany each forecast (probability history, change since filing/last review, review rationale). It stops short of mentioning auth, rate limits, or result-size limits.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded on what the resource is, then the archive modifier. The first sentence is dense but every clause carries information; nothing is 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, so the description must explain return values — and it does well, enumerating the per-forecast fields and the archive variant. Gaps are minor: no pagination, sorting, or result-cap behavior, which an agent might need for a large question set.

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 100%, so the schema already documents category, movers_only and include_archive. The description restates the archive semantics ('closed questions (resolved, past-horizon and retired) with their full trajectories') with only marginal added value beyond the schema text, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('NERAI's open calibrated forecasts — binary questions with probabilities and horizons') and scopes it across named domains, which is clearly distinct from every sibling (country risk, chokepoint traffic, enforcement precedent). An agent can tell what comes back without opening the 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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the description explains what the desk contains and that include_archive surfaces closed questions, which hints at monitoring use. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or contrast against siblings like get_early_warning or get_country_risk.

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