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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that a prediction is submitted and will be scored, but it says nothing about side effects, duplicate submissions, mutability, required probability constraints, or whether the operation is reversible.

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 one short sentence with no filler and front-loads the core action. It is efficient, though slightly too sparse to fully support agent decision-making.

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 five required parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and 0% schema description coverage, the definition is not complete. An agent can identify the general purpose but cannot determine validation rules, expected behavior, or how to handle the response.

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%, yet the description adds no information about contributor_id, match_id, or the p_home/p_draw/p_away fields. The phrase 'prediction' implies the p_* fields are probabilities, but no ranges, summation rules, or formats are given.

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 specifies a concrete action ('Submit a prediction') and its purpose ('scored by CLV'), which distinguishes the tool from purely informational siblings like get_predictions. It does not explicitly differentiate from place_bet or mention alternatives, but the core intent is clear.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as place_bet or get_predictions. The description does not mention prerequisites, restrictions on submission window, or how this prediction relates to CLV scoring.

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