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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, lowering the burden. The description adds a 'READ LIVE' trait and indicates the tool returns current value, threshold, distance, and an on-track/off-track verdict. It does not disclose rate limits, error handling, or data freshness beyond the phrase, but it does not contradict 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 wastes opening words by repeating the tool name ('SYNTHORA resolution-source-feed:'), adds promotional emphasis ('READ LIVE'), and ends with an incomplete sentence ('the answer a trader checks before'). It is not tightly structured, and the truncation undermines clarity.

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 one parameter, a rich output schema, and full read-only annotations, the description covers the core message: input slug, scope, and returned verdict. However, the truncated final phrase, lack of slug format detail, and absence of guidance for non-covered markets leave gaps that prevent full contextual completeness.

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 only parameter is a generic 'input' described as 'parametros del producto', which is unhelpful. The description compensates by specifying that the input should be a Polymarket market slug. This is meaningful semantic information beyond the schema, though it does not give the precise expected string format.

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 action ('give a Polymarket market slug, get its official resolution source'), the resource, and the output fields (current value, threshold, distance, verdict). It also narrows scope to IMF PortWatch chokepoint markets. However, it does not explicitly contrast with close siblings like resolution_verdict or polymarket_resolution_watch, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 implies usage for Polymarket IMF PortWatch resolution checks but never states when to use this tool versus alternatives such as market_resolution, polymarket_resolution_watch, or resolution_verdict. There are no explicit exclusions, conditions, or routing cues, which is a significant gap given the large sibling set.

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