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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description contributes nothing beyond that — no word on whether a proposal may be absent, whether it is pending vs. finalized, or what state the market must be in for a proposal to exist.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with zero padding, so nothing is wasted structurally. However the brevity comes from omission rather than discipline — the sentence is simply the title copied over, so it does not 'earn its place' by conveying any information the name did not already provide.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but for a read tool sitting in a dense cluster of resolution-related siblings the definition is not complete enough to route correctly. An agent cannot tell from this text whether to call it, get_market_resolution_state, get_resolution_status, or list_pending_resolution_markets.

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 100% (both chainId and marketAddress are documented with format and constraint details), so the schema carries the parameter burden and baseline 3 applies. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, in particular it does not say whether chainId defaults or is required in practice.

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?

Tautological: description restates name/title.

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 when-to-use guidance, no stated preconditions, and no mention of the alternatives among the resolution-related siblings. The agent must infer that this returns a *proposal* (pre-final) rather than the resolution state or status, which is exactly the distinction that matters here.

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