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 valuable details beyond that: it discloses the keyset pagination mechanism, notes that nested market summaries are bounded, and warns that titles and descriptions are quoted upstream text rather than instructions. These are behavioral traits that an agent needs to know and are not present in the annotations.

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 sentences long. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and key features (listing events, keyset pagination, bounded summaries). The second sentence is a concise safety note about quoted text. There is no wasted wording or redundancy.

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 13 parameters and only 8% schema coverage, the description does not adequately explain parameter semantics, which is a significant gap. However, an output schema exists, so return structure is covered, and the annotations handle safety. The description gives enough to understand the tool's core purpose but lacks depth for full usage without external documentation. It is minimally adequate.

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 8% – only the 'platform' parameter has a description. The tool description mentions keyset pagination but does not explicitly link it to the cursor parameter or explain the other 12 parameters. With such low schema coverage, the description should compensate, but it adds almost no parameter-specific meaning. The agent is left guessing the semantics of parameters like live, closed, order, ascending, and the date filters.

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 the tool lists Polymarket events, a specific verb and resource. It further distinguishes itself by mentioning keyset pagination and bounded nested market summaries, which sets it apart from single-event tools like get_event. The scope is unambiguous even without naming siblings.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_event, search_markets, or list_sports_markets. The description implies listing as a use case but does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or when another tool would be more appropriate. The agent must infer usage from the name and context.

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