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

Annotations already establish readOnly, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond those flags by disclosing that a single opaque cursor advances both nested collections, and that teams/markets are included only when requested for a sport/league tag.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: alias identity, core purpose with optional filters, and cursor behavior. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 an output schema available and annotations covering safety, the description provides the remaining key context: what is listed, how optional filtering works, and how pagination behaves. It does not enumerate every market type, but the output schema can carry that detail.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It does this for sport and league by calling them tags used to include teams/markets, and for cursor by explaining it continues both nested collections. Limit and offset are not described, but their names, defaults, and bounds are self-explanatory in the schema.

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 opens by identifying the tool as an alias of polymarket_list_sports_markets and then states a specific verb and resource: 'List sports metadata and market types'. It also specifies the optional inclusion of teams and markets filtered by sport or league, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool returns.

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 scope of the tool is clear enough that an agent can infer it is for sports metadata rather than order books or wallet data, and the optional sport/league filters are mentioned. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this tool over siblings such as list_events, show_markets, or search_markets, so usage guidance is only implied.

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