metaculus_question_forecast_history

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the credential-free public source and the three aggregation methods, but says nothing about the return format (no output schema exists to compensate), error behavior for non-existent ids, or how the aggregation methods differ behaviorally. Disclosure is minimal for a read tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Three sentences with no wasted phrasing, and the core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. It is appropriately concise, though the final sentence about the method enum largely duplicates schema information.

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?

This is a moderately complex tool with 3 parameters, an enum, no output schema, and no annotations. The description explains what is returned but not the shape of the returned history points or how the method choices affect output, which an agent needs given no output schema to fall back on.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema: it merely repeats the method enum values already documented. It does not explain the semantic differences between recency_weighted and unweighted, which would have been genuinely useful.

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 ('Returns'), a precise resource ('public aggregation forecast history points for one Metaculus question'), and scopes to a single question. It distinguishes from siblings like metaculus_question and metaculus_question_metadata by emphasizing the time-series history aspect, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the closely-named metaculus_question_forecasts.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the closely related metaculus_question_forecasts or metaculus_question_metadata. The credential-free note is context, not a usage rule, and no exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided. An agent would have to infer the difference from the names alone.

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