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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat safety traits. It adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the score range and the concrete factors considered, which helps an agent understand what the score represents and what may influence it.

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 structure is efficient: a lead phrase, a colon-separated list of scoring factors, and a call instruction. However, the final instruction is cut off mid-word ('conditio'), leaving the sentence incomplete and preventing a higher score for structural polish.

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?

For a scoring tool with one generic input parameter, the description covers the scoring dimensions and partially explains the expected input, which is helpful. But the input guidance is truncated, and no usage boundary is given relative to resolution-focused sibling tools, so the definition is not fully self-sufficient even though an output schema exists.

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 schema's single 'input' parameter is only described as 'parametros del producto (JSON o texto)', a vague generic description. The tool description compensates by clarifying that the caller should pass a market_slug or a condition identifier, which is essential and not inferable from the schema. The guidance is truncated, so it is not a full 5.

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 identifies the resource (Polymarket markets) and the output (a 0-100 resolution/dispute risk score), and it lists the components used to derive it. It lacks an explicit verb like 'computes' or 'estimates' and does not itself distinguish the tool from the many resolution-related siblings, so it misses the top score.

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?

There is no statement of when this tool should be used instead of alternatives such as market_resolution, resolution_verdict, or polymarket_resolution_watch. The only guidance is the input instruction ('Pass a market_slug or conditio...'), which says how to call the tool but not when it is the appropriate choice.

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