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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions the process ('Builds a causal tree and scans for mispriced contracts') and timing ('Formation takes ~60s'), which is useful. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., whether the thesis is published, whether it consumes funds, or what the outcome is). Since this is a creation tool, more explicit behavioral disclosure would be expected.

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 concise and front-loaded: first sentence states the core purpose, followed by examples and process details. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff. The structure is clear and easy to scan.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description explains the input requirements, the internal process, and the expected duration. It is usable as-is. It could be more complete by mentioning what the tool returns or any prerequisites (e.g., required permissions or linked accounts), but it covers the essential workflow for a thesis creation tool.

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?

The schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the 'thesis' parameter in detail with good and bad examples, clarifying what constitutes a valid claim. This enriches the parameter semantics beyond the schema's simple description. No additional meaning is provided for 'sync' or 'apiKey', but the core parameter is well-expanded.

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 clearly states the action: 'Create a new prediction market thesis from a TESTABLE CLAIM'. It specifies the resource (prediction market thesis), the required input format (testable claim), and distinguishes it from reasoning by providing good/bad examples. This is specific and differentiates it from sibling tools like create_strategy or update_thesis.

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 description provides clear guidance on when to use the tool: when you have a testable claim that can be verified true or false. It reinforces this with concrete examples of valid and invalid claims. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use this tool, so it falls 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.