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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description is not solely responsible for safety cues. However, it adds valuable context: 'No API key required', explains default summary behavior, and details the crossSourceMatches and referenceProbability fields. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is a single paragraph but front-loaded with the core purpose. It efficiently packs many details (fields, usage guidance, sibling reference) without being overly verbose. Minor improvement: could be broken into sentences for easier scanning.

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 an output schema present, return value explanation is not required, yet the description already covers key return fields. It addresses the default vs. full behavior, cross-venue comparison capability, and compares to pm_quote, making it complete for a research 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds some context beyond the schema (e.g., meaning of referenceProbability, detail parameter distinction), but it does not systematically explain each parameter's usage pattern beyond what the schema already provides.

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 specifies the tool retrieves detail for one prediction-market event by venue and slug, clearly listing components like outcomes, probabilities, price snapshots, resolution evidence, crossSourceMatches, referenceProbability, etc. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling pm_quote by stating 'This is the cross-venue research view; for tradability use pm_quote.'

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?

Explicitly states when to use (research view) and when not (for tradability use pm_quote). Also provides guidance on the detail parameter: 'Set detail=full only when the untouched provider-rich record is needed.' No ambiguity.

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