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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose two useful traits: search is full-text/fuzzy rather than exact-match, and results are restricted to currently active markets. However, it says nothing about result ordering/ranking, pagination behavior beyond the schema's limit, or rate limits.

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 front-loaded sentences with no filler; the scope constraint ('active markets') comes first. It is efficient, though very sparse for a five-parameter search tool.

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, the description should hint at what a result contains (market id, question, volume, prices) so an agent knows what to do with the response, and it does not. The schema is fully documented, but the return contract and the role of notification_message remain unexplained.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds only that queries may be natural language, which mildly informs the 'query' parameter but says nothing about combining category, min_volume, or the unusual 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('full-text search across all active Polymarket markets') with an explicit scope ('active'), which cleanly separates it from retrieval siblings like get_market_summary or get_market_odds. It does not name any sibling or declare what it is not, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied: it is the discovery tool for finding markets by keyword or natural language. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer get_related_markets or get_market_summary, and no note on how to combine it with downstream retrieval tools.

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