How unlocks are rated, and what happened before past ones

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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, open-world tool, so the description need not restate safety. It adds useful behavioral context by describing the historical statistics returned and by clarifying that the result is methodology/track-record information, not a single-token prediction.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence says what it explains and returns, the second says when to use it, and the third gives a scoping exclusion. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description gives enough detail about the rating method, historical comparison, and usage boundaries. It could be slightly more complete by specifying the historical lookback window beyond 'past unlocks,' but the core behavior is clear.

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?

There are zero parameters, so parameter semantics are not a meaningful source of ambiguity. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description adds relevant context about what the tool evaluates without implying hidden inputs.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it explains the strong/medium/small rating and gives the historical unlock track record. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from a single-token forecast, so an agent can separate it from unlock tools that answer per-token questions.

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?

It gives explicit use cases: when the user asks what 'strong' means, whether unlocks move prices, or how reliable the rating is. It also states a clear exclusion ('Not a forecast for any single token'), though it does not name the sibling tool to use for that forecast case.

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