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

Annotations already mark it read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description does not need to repeat safety traits. It adds meaningful context by specifying the resolution status lifecycle (proposed/disputed), source-declaration behavior, and hours-to-resolution, which are beyond annotation data.

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 dense clause that front-loads the core purpose before listing the data fields. Each listed piece adds information and none is redundant with the schema or annotations.

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 read-only status tool with a single parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential input requirement and the expected fields. Minor gaps are the lack of explicit JSON formatting guidance and absence of sibling differentiation, but these are not fatal given the output schema and annotations.

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 only describes a generic 'input' string in Spanish, so the description is what gives the parameter meaning by naming market_slug and condition_id as the required discriminator. It doesn't specify the exact JSON shape, but it compensates for the schema's vagueness with concrete identifier semantics.

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 tool as returning canonical resolution status for a single Polymarket market and enumerates the exact data fields (market state, UMA statuses, end date, resolution sources, prices). It distinguishes itself from broader sibling tools by emphasizing 'one market' and 'canonical', though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives.

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 only usage hint is the '(market_slug or condition_id required)' prerequisite, which is about required inputs rather than when to prefer this tool. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided, despite a large sibling set containing resolution feeds and watches.

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