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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the tool 'returns' data, implying a read-only operation, and mentions the data source. However, it does not explicitly state that it has no side effects, nor does it describe error scenarios or authorization requirements.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every phrase adds value. It avoids redundancy and is highly scannable.

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 retrieval tool with one parameter, the description covers purpose, returned fields, and data source. No output schema exists, so the explicit mention of probability, confidence, and citations adequately sets expectations for the response.

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 parameter 'slug' is fully described in the schema with an example, providing 100% coverage. The description adds context about the answer card but does not enrich the parameter semantics beyond what the schema already offers.

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 tool returns a pre-computed answer card for a probability question, specifying the exact contents ('probability, confidence, and citations'). It also references the /answer/{slug} endpoint, which distinguishes it from sibling get_* tools that return forecasts, opinions, or market details.

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 phrase 'pre-computed answer card' and the reference to /answer/{slug} imply this tool is for retrieving already-generated answers rather than creating new ones. This provides clear context, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria.

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