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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds 'Returns compacted results,' which provides some insight into output size, but it does not explain pagination behavior or what 'compacted' means beyond the schema/defaults. This adds modest context but not rich behavioral detail.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core action and adds a single useful detail about output compactness. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only search tool with strong annotations and a simple schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on pagination (page parameter), filtering status (events_status), and what 'compacted' results contain. Without an output schema, the agent has insufficient information about return format, leaving clear gaps.

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 only 33% (only 'q' has a description). The description mentions 'by keyword' which maps to q, but it does not explain 'page' or 'events_status' parameters. Since the description should compensate for low schema coverage but fails to clarify the remaining parameters, the semantics are weak.

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 verb and resource ('Search Polymarket events by keyword') and distinguishes from sibling tools like getPolyMarketEvents (lists all), getPolyMarketEvent (single item), and getPolyMarketEventsByTag (tag-based). The keyword scope makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage for keyword-based searches, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit, matching the 'implied usage' criterion.

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