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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the two relation types and implies a read-only lookup, but says nothing about ordering, whether results span categories when few siblings exist, or what a call costs in terms of latency – so key behavioral traits remain unknown.

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?

One front-loaded sentence that wastes no words and puts the core definition first. It is somewhat terse given the absence of annotations, but no sentence is padding.

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 description resolves the central ambiguity – what 'related' means – which is the most important thing for this tool. However, with no annotations and no output schema, an agent still lacks return shape, ordering, and result-size behavior beyond the limit parameter.

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 100%, so slug, limit, and notification_message are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description does not clarify whether 'slug' refers to a market slug or an event slug, which is exactly the ambiguity an agent would need resolved.

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 ('Finds related Polymarket markets') and defines 'related' concretely as sibling outcomes in the same event or other markets in the same category/topic. That distinguishes it clearly from the data-fetching siblings (get_market_odds, get_market_orderbook, etc.), though it never names an alternative tool.

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?

No statement of when to use this versus search_markets, get_market_summary, or get_market_news_context; the use case (post-discovery exploration) must be inferred from the word 'related'. No prerequisites, exclusions, or sequencing guidance are given.

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