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

The description discloses detailed behavioral information beyond what annotations provide. Annotations only state readOnlyHint=true, but the description explains exactly what is returned (canonical events, per-outcome pair ids, Polymarket conditionIds, Kalshi tickers, match dates, ruleset_sha, coverage kickoff cutoff, snapshot freshness) and mentions pricing for the crypto namespace. 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 relatively concise given the amount of information conveyed. It front-loads the purpose and covers return values and usage. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for return fields). Still, every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists (context signal), the description is complete. It explains the return values, usage, pricing, and links to the sibling tool. An agent can correctly invoke this tool without additional guidance.

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?

The input schema has no parameters (empty object), so there is nothing to add meaning to. With schema description coverage at 100% and zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Free discovery of everything check_resolution_risk can audit across both inventories'. It specifies the resources (World Cup football pairs and crypto oracle-divergence pairs) and the action (discovery). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool check_resolution_risk by indicating it is the list/discovery counterpart.

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?

The description explicitly tells when to use this tool and how its output feeds into the sibling: 'Use a returned pair_id (or a pair's two market ids) as input to check_resolution_risk'. It also provides context about the crypto namespace being paid after 3 free calls. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the guidance is sufficient.

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