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

The description richly supplements the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations by disclosing the PENDING semantics, the dependency on the coin's resolution status, and the hash-chain integrity behavior. It also tells the agent what to do conditionally, which is valuable beyond the annotations.

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 tight and front-loaded, with the core purpose in the first sentence. Every sentence adds meaningful behavioral or reporting detail, and there is no redundant filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately explains the returned information: grouped accuracy rates, pending handling, and hash-chain status. It is slightly light on defining 'band' or what 'right' means in concrete terms, but overall it is complete enough for a single-parameter 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?

The only parameter, limit, is fully described in the schema with range and default. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 the tool's purpose: measuring how often sealed calls were right, grouped by band and actual coin outcome. It names a specific resource and metric, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling groundtruth_scoreboard or other similar 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 gives strong interpretive guidance—report pending alongside resolved and don't quote numbers if the hash chain is broken—but it does not state when this tool should be preferred over its siblings. No alternatives or exclusion conditions are mentioned.

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