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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses an automatic safety/clarity check, that a rejection is not charged, the $0.30 x402/USDC cost, and that the return includes a secret resolve_token. These are non-obvious operational facts (cost, failure handling, credential-like output) that an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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?

It is front-loaded with the core action and packs cost, safety check, return values, and next steps into a tight passage with no filler. The nested parentheticals and the trailing cost sentence make it slightly dense to parse, but every clause carries information.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return contract (market id plus resolve_token) and the pricing/failure semantics, which is exactly what an agent needs to call it correctly. Nothing material about the call is left unstated.

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 description coverage is 83%, so the schema already documents question length, closes_at constraints, and options requirements. The description only restates the yes_no/multiple_choice distinction already captured by the type enum, adding essentially nothing about the six parameters. 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 verb and resource — publish a Yes/No or multiple-choice prediction market to Vatic's human crowd — and explicitly distinguishes this from the read/resolve siblings by naming read_my_question and resolve_my_question. An agent can tell exactly what this tool creates 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?

It gives clear follow-up routing: use read_my_question for the live crowd probability and resolve_my_question once the outcome is known, which covers the full lifecycle. It does not state when to prefer the sibling ask_the_crowd_priority or any precondition for choosing this over it, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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