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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful traits: only open (non-resolved) events are returned, rankings are live, and each event includes its markets with current probabilities. It omits freshness/refresh cadence and any rate-limit or pagination behavior, so it is additive but not complete.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and ranking, then the filter, then the use case. No filler and nothing repeated from structured fields.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not needed, and the description correctly focuses on scope and filters. For a zero-annotation, zero-schema-coverage tool with three optional parameters, it should still state the default result count and the accepted 'order' values to be fully self-sufficient.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate and does so partially: it enumerates example tag values (crypto, politics, sports, economy, tech, ai) and names the three order bases (24h volume, total volume, liquidity). It never mentions the limit parameter, its default of 20, or the exact accepted 'order' strings (e.g. volume24hr), leaving real ambiguity at call time.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (list most active open Polymarket events) plus the ranking basis and optional tag filter — an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not name or differentiate itself from siblings like polymarket_search, polymarket_market or prediction_markets_search, which is the only gap.

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?

"Use to see what traders are betting on today" implies a discovery/browse use case, but there is no explicit when-not guidance and no pointer to polymarket_search for keyword lookup or polymarket_market for a single event. The agent must infer the routing itself.

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