fahali_get_forecast

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: an Agent Starter entitlement gate and, on denial, a typed upgrade object rather than an error. It also guarantees the payload is 'ALWAYS served' and that withholding is disclosed via caveats. It stops short of describing latency, rate limits, or caching.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and its guaranteed payload, then gated access last — a sensible ordering. The 'Probabilities, never certainties; observation is not advice' clause is a useful framing but sits closer to boilerplate than operational instruction.

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 read-only, output-schema-backed tool the essential calling information (required symbol, entitlement gate, denial shape, interpretation caveats) is all present. The description leans on restating return fields that the output schema already carries, but nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 every one of the seven parameters is already documented, and the description adds no format, default, or interaction detail for limit, detail, include, or include_withheld. Per the coverage rule, baseline 3 is appropriate; the phrase 'declared horizon' gestures at scope but without tying it to any parameter.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (forward distribution for one symbol) and enumerates exactly what is returned: direction with three states, three summing probabilities, expected move, and cone. It does not, however, differentiate itself from close siblings such as fahali_get_symbol_decision, fahali_get_market_verdict, or fahali_get_lead_time, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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 tells the agent to read evidenceTier and judged-record reliability and warns that caveats name withheld data, which is consumption guidance rather than selection guidance. There is no explicit statement of when to call this instead of the other forecast-like siblings, so usage is only implied.

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