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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context about the payment model ('Paid per call with x402 on Base: $0.01 to $0.05 USDC') and the shared-credit mechanism, which are non-obvious behavioral traits. However, it does not address whether the tool is read-only, what happens on no evidence, or any rate limits, leaving some behavioral uncertainty.

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 concise, three sentences long, with the primary purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The pricing and sharing details are relevant but add length; still, every sentence earns its place and there is no fluff.

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 moderate complexity (4 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, pricing, and sharing but omits usage guidelines and any details about the return format or error behavior. The schema covers parameters, so the description is adequate but not comprehensive.

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%, so each parameter is already documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Returns current, sourced and machine-readable evidence') and its specific target ('supporting or contradicting a prediction-market proposition'). This is a specific verb and resource, but it does not differentiate from siblings like evidence_artifact or tereno_find_claims, which likely overlap in purpose.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative evidence-related tools among the siblings. There is no explicit context, no exclusions, and no mention of prerequisites or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer when to select this tool.

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