Resolution evidence for a prediction market

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value is in disclosing output semantics: the four verdict categories and the rule that conflicts are 'reported as a conflict, never averaged.' That is genuine behavioral context an agent could not infer from structured fields. It stops short of saying what happens with zero sources or how the verdict is surfaced in the response.

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 short sentences, zero filler. The core operation and verdict set come first, the conflict-handling rule second, and the usage prohibition last. Every sentence carries 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?

With no output schema, the description does the necessary work of naming the verdict vocabulary and the no-averaging rule, which is exactly what an agent needs to interpret a result. The remaining gap is the shape of the input market document and what 'insufficient' is triggered by, but overall it is adequate for a single-parameter read-only tool.

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 applies, but the single parameter is documented only as 'Market document.' with nested content left entirely unspecified in both schema and description. The description adds no guidance on what the market object must contain for evidence to be resolvable.

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 a specific verb and comparison (weigh sources against the declared outcome) and enumerates the four verdict values, so an agent knows the tool produces an adjudication, not raw data. It does not name or distinguish itself from any of the listed siblings, which leaves differentiation implicit rather than explicit.

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?

Gives a clear negative boundary: 'Do NOT use to trade or to place a position,' which rules out a plausible mis-invocation for a prediction-market tool. The positive trigger (evaluate a resolver's sourcing before accepting an outcome) is implied rather than stated, and no sibling alternative is named.

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