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

Goes well past the readOnly/idempotent annotations by enumerating what actually comes back (status/date, remark flags, filing counts by year/category/status, stay and withdrawal counts, approval-pending and perpetual-futures counts, code-map evidence, open comment periods). It also sets interpretive guardrails — pending means only pending, a stay is a remark not a finding, counts measure filing practice not markets or odds, and dates may be re-dated — which materially affect how an agent should report results.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb, resource, and register, followed by a dense but purposeful return inventory and three interpretive caveats that each add real value. The middle enumeration is long and close to a run-on list, but nothing is filler.

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 a single required parameter, no output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description fills the remaining gap by describing the full return payload and the caveats needed to interpret it. An agent can call and correctly report on this tool without further information.

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 already documents code-or-case-insensitive-substring plus the pending semantics, so the description adds little beyond restating 'by exchange code or name substring'. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter detail.

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?

Names a specific verb (Find), a specific resource (CFTC designated contract market or pending application), and the exact index it queries (MORVS Prediction Market Register), plus the matching keys. That scope cleanly separates it from the sibling prediction_market_filings, which deals with the underlying filings rather than the exchange entity.

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 the lookup scenario (resolve an exchange by code or name before inspecting its filings) and clarifies the pending-vs-stay distinction, but it never explicitly says when to use this tool instead of prediction_market_filings or the other register/search siblings. Usage is inferable, not stated.

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