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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden. It does add real behavioral context – the read is live and 'free with your resolve_token' – which tells the agent about cost and credential requirements, but it omits whether the call is read-only/non-mutating, how fresh the probability is, and any rate limits or failure modes.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the cost/credential note. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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 minimal two-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers what it fetches and that it is free, but it leaves the market identifier source, the shape of the returned probability, and the error behavior 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that the 'token' parameter is the resolve_token, which is genuinely useful, but the required 'id' parameter is never explained – the agent must guess it is the market id returned by ask_the_crowd.

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 and scope: the live crowd probability of a market the caller created via ask_the_crowd. That scope word 'my/created with ask_the_crowd' signals it differs from generic market readers like get_market or live_market, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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 by 'a market you created' – use it for your own markets, after asking the crowd. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of what to do for markets you did not create, and no routing to siblings such as get_market or resolve_my_question.

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