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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the returned field set (title, question, prices, volume, open interest, resolution rules, template), which is genuinely useful given no output schema. It says nothing about auth requirements, error behavior for a bad market_id, or data freshness.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with the action and scope first and the payload list after; no filler, no restatement of the tool name. Every token contributes information.

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?

The field enumeration stands in for the missing output schema, which is a real contribution. But with no annotations, no parameter description, and no mention of invalid-ID handling, the definition is only minimally sufficient for an agent to call this reliably.

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% and the description only implies that market_id identifies a single market. It never states the accepted identifier format (slug, UUID, numeric ID) or whether it must be an exact match, so the single parameter is effectively undocumented in both places.

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 ('Get') plus resource ('single market') with an enumerated payload, which cleanly separates it from the list-oriented siblings (pax.market_search, pax.markets_top_volume) and the slice endpoints (pax.market_orderbook, pax.market_price_history). An agent can pick this tool without opening any schema.

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 phrase 'for a single market' implies the use case (fetch detail for one known market) but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over pax.market_search or pax.market_orderbook, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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