record_forecast

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

The description adds context beyond the annotations by noting the probability range and that no operation occurs. However, it does not explain whether forecasts can be overwritten, what happens after evaluation, or whether submission is final once the close occurs.

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 entire description is one compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and includes the most important constraints and evaluation context.

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 write tool with four required parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain the expected values for slug/outcome/reason, return behavior, or any failure conditions such as missing or late forecasts.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only clarifies the 'probability' parameter as a 0..1 value. The required parameters slug, outcome, and reason remain semantically unexplained, leaving the agent to infer their intended meaning.

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 states a specific action ('Guarda pronóstico'), a defined resource (forecast before closing), and a key constraint ('sin operar'). This clearly separates it from trading-oriented siblings like execute_trade and quote_trade.

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?

'Antes del cierre' gives an explicit temporal condition, and 'sin operar' clarifies that this is not a trading action. It does not name alternative tools explicitly, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose this over execution tools.

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