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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable traits beyond annotations: determinism, evidence-boundedness, signing, and the abstaining behavior on insufficient history. This provides meaningful context for an agent's expectations, though it does not detail output format or error handling.

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 very short and front-loads the core purpose. Each phrase adds value (purpose, cost, behavioral traits). However, the punctuation is awkward (multiple periods/semicolon) and the cost mention could be considered extraneous, but overall it is efficient.

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 tool with an open input schema, no parameter guidance, and only an output schema (not described), the description is incomplete. An agent cannot determine what input to provide or what the response structure will be. The abstaining behavior is noted, but the lack of input/output details makes the tool hard to invoke correctly.

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 has zero defined parameters but is an open object requiring at least one property (minProperties: 1). The description does not explain what properties to provide, leaving the agent without guidance on input structure. With no named parameters, the baseline is 4, but the open schema creates a gap that the description fails to fill.

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 a specific action ('Forecast verified demand trends') and a resource ('market demand'), and includes a behavioral qualifier ('abstaining on insufficient history') that differentiates it from generic predictors. The added traits (deterministic, evidence-bounded, signed) further clarify its distinct nature among many sibling tools.

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 implies a usage condition ('abstaining on insufficient history') but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when this tool should be preferred over other predictors like provider_quality_predictor or price_discovery_engine. There is no explicit 'use this when' guidance or exclusion of other contexts.

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