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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does a good job. It discloses the core behavioral facts: only a validator with no position can resolve, the creator cannot be the resolver, winners split the pot pro rata, and the resolver collects a fee. It also implies a settlement operation that finalizes the market. It doesn't mention reversibility or what happens if the market isn't closed, but it gives substantial behavioral context.

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 compact and front-loaded: it states the action first, then the key constraint, then the consequence. Every clause earns its place. It could be slightly more structured with separate sentences for the eligibility rule and the payout logic, but it remains efficient and easy to parse.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main behavioral contract—who can call it, the core constraints, and what happens on settlement. However, it lacks details an agent might need to invoke it correctly: what the 'outcome' boolean semantically means, whether the resolver fee is defined elsewhere, market state prerequisites beyond 'closed', and what error conditions exist. It's adequate but not complete on its own.

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 explain the parameters. It explains the role of the resolver (validator with no position) and outcome in general terms (winners split the pot), but it doesn't explicitly define marketId, note, or the exact expected values for outcome beyond being boolean. The description adds context for resolver but leaves the other parameters under-specified, so it only partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 states a specific action ('Settle a closed market') and identifies the exact resource (closed market) and relevant entities (validator, creator). It also conveys the essential rule that the resolver must have no position in the market and excludes the creator, which distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like bet_prediction, create_prediction, or arbitrate_dispute. The verb 'settle' plus the explicit condition makes the purpose unmistakable.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool: to settle a closed market. It also states who is eligible to call it (a registered validator with a live stake and no position) and who is excluded (the creator). This is clear context. However, it doesn't explicitly say 'use X instead for disputed markets' or otherwise name alternatives, so it stops short of full exclusion guidance.

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