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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description must carry the behavioral load and largely does not. The deferred-settlement wording adds a little context, but there is no disclosure of what gets created, whether repeated calls duplicate entries, permission requirements, or what the ledger effect is.

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?

A single front-loaded clause with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is what forces the gaps seen in other dimensions rather than being a virtue of good scoping.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and only a minimal annotation set, the description omits critical context: what the recorded event does downstream, how it relates to the ledger or settlement siblings, and what the caller should expect after the call. The one-sentence description is not sufficient at this complexity level.

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 100%, with every parameter (symbol, eventType, expectedDateIso, expectedDirection, expectedMagnitudePct, note, alertRef, probabilityEstimate, thesisRef) documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the 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 Polish description states a specific action and resource: recording an event whose price impact is to be settled later, which is a clear verb+resource pairing. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as update_priced_event, resolve_priced_event_now, or cancel_priced_event, leaving the agent to infer which entry point is correct.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the alternative priced-event tools, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The phrase 'settle later' hints at deferred-resolution use, but this is implied rather than stated as a when-to-use rule.

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