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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent and openWorld=false. The description adds real value beyond them: 'Free public data' tells the agent no auth/credits are needed, and the tracked_15m flag is explained as controlling 15-min history availability via another tool.

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?

Front-loaded with the resource and venues, then coverage scope, then the query behavior and the sibling-tool hook. Dense but every clause carries information; slight cramming of venue names makes it a touch harder to scan.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (YES price, volume, close date, tracked_15m). Venue coverage and the free/public data caveat are included; pagination or result limits are not mentioned, which is the only notable gap.

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% for the single 'query' param, so baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema's terse 'Optional topic to search' by showing example topic values and confirming the search is optional, which is the practical format guidance an agent needs.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Live prediction markets') with named venues (Polymarket, Kalshi, Hyperliquid HIP-4) and explicit returned fields (YES price, volume, close date). It also implicitly distinguishes itself from get_prediction_history by noting that only Kalshi tracked markets get 15-min history via that sibling.

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?

States that the topic search is optional and gives concrete query examples ('election', 'bitcoin', 'nfl'), and routes history-seeking agents to get_prediction_history. No explicit when-not-to-use condition, but the decision context is clear.

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