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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Returns' implies a read, but it does not say what happens for an unresolved or unknown slug, whether resolution-source metadata can be null, or anything about auth or rate limits — all of which matter for a resolution-lookup tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the resource and returned fields lead immediately.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description usefully enumerates the return fields, which partially compensates. But it omits edge-case behavior for unresolved markets and says nothing about the second parameter, leaving an agent to infer too much for a data-lookup tool.

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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters documented in the schema itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about the slug format (id vs. URL slug) or the unusual optional notification_message parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') plus a precisely scoped resource ('resolution state, outcome, close date, and resolution-source metadata for a Polymarket market'). An agent can distinguish it from siblings like get_market_summary or get_market_odds by the resolution focus, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the many adjacent market tools (summary, odds, related markets), nor any preconditions such as whether the market must already be closed or resolved. Usage is only inferable from the field list.

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