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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: matching is substring-based, one word at a time, and game winners are titled by city. It says nothing about result ordering, pagination, or why the search is open-world, so it stays at an adequate-but-thin level.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core matching semantics before the sibling aside. The nested parentheses make the parenthetical example slightly hard to parse, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. The matching semantics and one-word constraint are covered, but the 'full' parameter is unexplained and there is no note on ordering or result scope for a search tool that can return many matches. Adequate for the tool's complexity but with visible holes.

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 33%: only 'limit' is documented (default 10, max 50) in the schema itself. The description meaningfully explains what 'query' matches (titles and tickers, one word at a time, with the 'Kansas City' example), which is more than the schema offers. The 'full' boolean, however, is undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a real 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?

States a specific mechanism (substring search) and the exact resource fields searched (market and event titles and tickers). It also gestures at the sibling boundary by noting that list_markets with event_ticker lists an event, so the agent can distinguish the two without opening schemas. Not fully 5 because the relation to screen_markets is left unstated.

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?

It gives an actionable querying rule ('one word at a time') and hints that list_markets is the alternative for listing an event's markets, which is genuine routing guidance. However, it never states when to prefer search_markets over screen_markets or list_markets, and no exclusions are given. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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