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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Return' implies a safe read, but it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, what happens for a market that is not yet resolved, or whether the evidence is paginated or truncated — real gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single tight sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the payload, with no filler. It is efficient but arguably under-specified rather than concise by design.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must carry the safety profile and return-shape context, and it does neither. An agent cannot tell what 'evidence + sources' concretely contains or how the call behaves for an unresolved market.

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 schema adds nothing about the single parameter. The description only implicitly ties market_id to the market being examined; the parameter name is self-explanatory, but no format, source, or identification convention is given. It neither fully compensates nor leaves the agent lost.

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 ('Return') and resource ('evidence + sources used to resolve a market'), which is far more informative than a tautology. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent read tools like pax.market_get or pax.market_search, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

Usage is only implied: the phrasing 'used to resolve a market' signals this is a post-resolution lookup rather than a general market read. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative such as pax.market_get for general market data.

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