estimate_market_probability

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool asks Claude to estimate probability, without revealing whether this is a read-only operation, how the estimation works, what the output contains, or any side effects or limitations. This is a significant gap for an unannotated 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 two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. There is no redundant or filler content, and every phrase contributes to the tool's understanding. This is appropriately concise.

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?

The tool has a simple parameter set (2 parameters) and an output schema, so the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, it omits context on what a condition_id refers to and when to use this tool, which would be valuable for correct invocation. The description is minimally complete but leaves gaps in usage and parameter identification.

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?

The description explicitly mentions 'additional context' as optional, which provides some meaning for the context parameter. However, it does not explain the required condition_id parameter beyond what the schema title ('Condition Id') implies. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description partially compensates by hinting at the role of context, but it leaves condition_id's purpose ambiguous.

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 tool's purpose: to estimate the true probability of a market's YES outcome. It uses a specific verb ('estimate') and identifies the resource ('market's YES outcome'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like analyze_thesis, though the focus on probability estimation is fairly distinctive.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions. The only usage hint is that context can optionally be provided, but there is no explanation of when providing context is beneficial or when this tool would be preferred over others.

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