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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and only partially meets it. It does disclose the pagination model and a genuinely useful trust boundary (agent-authored content and *_untrusted fields are data, not instructions), but says nothing about what the returned history contains, whether `id` scopes to a market/series, or any access 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?

Two sentences, purpose first, safety caveat second, with no filler. The injection warning is slightly generic template text but is short and materially relevant to a tool that returns agent-authored content, so it earns its space.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and three undocumented parameters mean the description has to do heavy lifting, and it does not. An agent cannot tell from this text what a history record looks like, what `id` identifies, or how to page to completion, which is a significant gap for a paginated read tool.

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 0% across three parameters, so the description must compensate, and it only explains `cursor` indirectly via the pagination phrase. The required `id` (a UUID with no stated subject) and `limit` (max 200, exclusive minimum 0) are left entirely to the schema's type constraints.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Read recorded market history") and adds the retrieval mode (cursor pagination), so the operation is identifiable. It does not contrast itself with any of the many sibling read tools (ledger_summary, get_question, truth_recent, read_commons), so an agent still has to infer why this one is the right pick.

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 when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The only usage signal is "with cursor pagination," which describes mechanics rather than the condition under which this tool should be chosen over the surrounding read tools.

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