metaculus_question_options

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It accurately conveys that the operation is a read of public data and that values are the 'latest', implying a snapshot. However, it does not mention behavior for non-multiple-choice questions, the discrepancy between 'question' in the description and 'question or post id' in the schema, or any error conditions. This is moderate transparency for a simple read tool.

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 at three sentences, with the core return behavior appearing in the second sentence, near the front. The opening sentence 'Metaculus question options.' is redundant with the tool name and could be removed, but the overall length and structure are appropriate and waste little 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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool, the description covers the core purpose and return content, and the schema fully documents both parameters. However, there is no output schema and the description does not describe the shape of the returned option labels/forecasts, nor does it explain the meaning of the three aggregation methods or a default. It is adequate but leaves some operational gaps.

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%: both `id` and `method` have structured descriptions. The description's note about the method enum merely restates the enum values already present in the schema, adding no new meaning about the semantics of each aggregation method or which is default. Per the high-coverage baseline, a 3 is correct.

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 function: 'Returns public multiple-choice option labels and latest option-level forecast values for one Metaculus question.' This pinpoints a specific resource (option labels and forecast values) with a clear verb, making it distinguishable from sibling tools like metaculus_question_forecasts or metaculus_question that cover different data scopes.

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 implies usage for retrieving option-level multiple-choice data but never explicitly distinguishes it from sibling Metaculus tools such as metaculus_question_forecasts or metaculus_question_forecast_history. No alternatives are named, no exclusions are stated, and the only additional guidance is about the method enum, which is parameter-level rather than usage-level.

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