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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: it returns 'largest public token holders' and is scoped to 'up to 20 markets.' It doesn't discuss rate limits or pagination, but the output schema and strong annotations lower that burden.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the alias relationship and the core purpose are both useful and front-loaded. Every clause 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?

With annotations and an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient: an agent knows this is a safe, idempotent batch read of holder data. However, it lacks explicit alternative routing and parameter explanations, so it stops at adequate rather than 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only indirectly hints at conditionIds via 'up to 20 markets.' It says nothing about `limit` or `minBalance`, leaving those meanings to be inferred from parameter names and schema defaults.

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?

States a specific action and resource: 'Get the largest public token holders for up to 20 markets.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on trades, prices, wallets, or events. The alias note also explicitly ties it to polymarket_get_market_holders.

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 use case—when you want holder data for up to 20 markets—but does not explicitly say when to prefer this over related market tools or mention exclusions. 'Alias of...' identifies an equivalent sibling rather than an alternative-choice rule.

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