Draft an oracle question

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that a free check (including a wording screen) runs and that a checkToken is returned, which signals a validation gate. It omits whether a wallet/setup is required, rate limits, and what happens on a failed wording screen, so the behavioral picture is incomplete.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the core action and ends with the cost signal ('Free'). No filler or repetition. It is slightly overloaded by the parenthetical jargon (EIP-712 attestation), but nothing is wasted.

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 9-parameter, nested-object tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain more of the request shape and the lifecycle (what the checkToken is for, how this feeds imd_order). It mentions the return payload but leaves most parameter semantics and the follow-up path to inference.

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?

Nine parameters with only ~33% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate, and it largely does not. It hints at the answer type ('typed question') and panel structure ('dependent agents, quorum') but never explains hours, chainId, sources, panelSize, or definitions semantics; the schema only documents three of them.

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?

States specific actions (builds a typed question, runs the free check, returns body and checkToken) against a named resource (IMD oracle panel). Clear enough that an agent knows this drafts and pre-validates a question. However, it does not differentiate itself from siblings like imd_draft and imd_check, which appear to overlap with parts of this workflow.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites or alternatives. The phrase 'runs the free check including the wording screen' implies this is a pre-submission step, but the sibling imd_check presumably does something similar and the description never tells the agent which to pick. Usage must be inferred.

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