Same question across deployers

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety bar is covered. The description adds domain behavior that matters: what grades exist (SAME, CLOSE, DIFFERENT), that differences are reported per member, and that books are merged only across SAME members — context an agent could not infer from annotations.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the core payload description is front-loaded before the lookup mechanism. The first sentence is dense and reads as a run-on list, but every clause 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 a full output schema, complete annotations, and 100% parameter coverage, the remaining burden is domain vocabulary, which the description supplies (anchor, rule grade, merged book). Minor gap: it doesn't say what happens if a member has no book or how partial/illiquid books appear.

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 both parameters are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description's 'by cluster id or by any member's outcome id' mildly reinforces that the two are alternative lookup paths, but it does not state mutual exclusivity, precedence, or behavior when both are supplied.

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?

It states a concrete verb and resource ('gives one question listed by several HIP-4 deployers') and enumerates the returned payload (rule grade, top of book, merged book), which is far more than a restatement of the name. It references odds_markets as the source of cluster ids but never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling odds_markets/odds_fair/odds_new tools.

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?

'Look it up by cluster id or by any member's outcome id' tells the agent the two acceptable lookup keys, which is useful routing. However, it gives no when-to-use guidance versus the sibling odds_markets, odds_fair, or odds_new tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites beyond the implicit 'get the cluster id from odds_markets first'.

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