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

Annotations declare a non-destructive, idempotent write; the description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: it is free, has a time-boxed window, and returns { prediction }. The exclusion rule about own dates is behaviorally important. Missing only whether predictions are locked/editable after submission.

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 with 'Free. Predict...' and packs a lot into a few clauses with no filler. The lead-time sentence is slightly convoluted ('about 10 minutes later'), but overall it earns its length.

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 4-parameter write tool with no output schema, it covers cost, timing window, eligibility exclusion, and the return shape. Coverage is good; only post-submission behavior and episode_id semantics are unaddressed.

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 50%. The description restates the pick enum values and the a/b/neither meaning of drama_pick, which the schema already documents, so it adds little. episode_id (required, undocumented in schema) gets no semantic explanation in the description.

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 and resource: 'Predict how an episode ends', and immediately conveys the stakes (free points). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_episode or browse_episodes, though it does not name an alternative pick-style tool. Strong but not sibling-routing.

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?

Gives a concrete availability window ('open from booking until it airs') and an explicit exclusion ('Not on a date one of your characters is in... you already know how that ends'). No named alternative tool is offered, so it stops short of a 5.

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