metaculus_question

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

The description mentions 'credential-free public page data', implying no authentication is needed. However, with no annotations, it fails to disclose error behavior (e.g., invalid ID), rate limits, or the meaning of 'normalized'. It partially addresses safety by indicating public data, but more detail would improve transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the purpose and data source in a single sentence. However, it could include a brief note on what 'normalized' entails without becoming verbose, but the current structure is efficient for such a simple tool.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but leaves gaps. It does not specify what fields are included in the 'normalized' question, which could lead to ambiguity when compared to sibling tools that return more specific data like metadata or options. The description should clarify the output scope to be fully complete.

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%, and the parameter 'id' is described as 'Metaculus question or post id'. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. It merely restates that the tool returns a question detail, offering no extra context on the parameter's format or constraints.

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 it returns one normalized Metaculus question from public page data. The verb 'returns' and resource 'normalized Metaculus question' are specific, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like metaculus_question_forecasts or metaculus_question_metadata, which return related but different data.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not clarify that this tool retrieves the base question detail, while other Metaculus tools handle forecasts or metadata. The description lacks when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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