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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a significant behavioral trait: 'The stake freezes in escrow until resolution' and that the platform holds the float. This goes beyond the schema and helps the agent understand the lock-up nature of the operation, though it omits details like reversibility and failure modes.

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 the action front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence earns its place by describing the escrow behavior, though the phrasing 'that is the product, not a delay' is slightly editorial and could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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?

The tool has four required parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter descriptions. The description leaves out critical operational details: what onYes=true vs false means, the role of owner, what the response is, what happens at resolution, and what errors occur if the market is closed or funds are insufficient.

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. It alludes to a 'side' and a 'stake' and an 'open market', but it never explicitly defines owner, marketId, onYes, or stake format/units. The onYes parameter is especially ambiguous: a boolean side is not clearly mapped to 'yes' vs 'no' in the text.

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 phrase 'Stake on a side of an open market' names a specific action and resource, clearly indicating this is for placing a bet on an existing market. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_prediction and resolve_prediction even without naming them, because the verb 'stake' and 'open market' make the scope obvious.

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 establishes that this tool is for open markets, which gives some context about when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions like checking whether the market is open, whether the stake is available, or that create_prediction should be used to create a market.

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