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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal the return shape (a citable summary paragraph plus raw fields), but says nothing about failure modes, auth needs, rate limits, or whether the market must exist.

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 efficient sentence with the core value proposition front-loaded and no filler. It is slightly under-specified rather than overwritten, which is the right side to err on.

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 should say more about what 'raw data fields' means for the caller to plan parsing. It is adequate for a simple two-parameter read tool but leaves a real gap.

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%, so both parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no extra meaning about slug format or the fallback role of notification_message, leaving it at the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns a pre-formatted, AI-citable summary paragraph for a Polymarket market plus raw data fields. This is distinct from sibling read tools like get_market_odds or get_price_history, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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 guidance on when to choose this over get_market_odds, get_market_news_context, or search_markets, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. 'For any Polymarket market' defines scope, not selection criteria.

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