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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description earns credit for the extra behavioral facts: the call is creator-authenticated, invisible creator-deployed markets are explained only to the bound creator wallet, and other callers receive MARKET_NOT_FOUND. It does not mention rate limits or whether visibility results are cached.

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 lead sentence is front-loaded and useful, but the 'Examples:' block is a semicolon-separated run-on whose clauses read as outcome fragments rather than parallel examples ('The event is over; the market is open on chain and takes no more trades'). It costs more parsing effort than the information warrants.

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 an output schema present, the description need not describe return values, and it covers auth scope, the not-found case, and the gating role. What remains thin is disambiguation from adjacent market-state tools, which matters given how many siblings exist.

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 100%, with chainId and marketAddress both documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no further meaning about how the market address is resolved per chain or whether a mismatch is rejected.

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 states a specific verb and resource: a 'preflight' check of 'whether a market is visible and tradeable', narrowed to a 'Creator-authenticated' caller. It implicitly separates itself from read-only state fetchers like problee_get_market_state by framing the call as a gating check, but it never names a sibling, so the distinction from problee_check_market_exists must be inferred.

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?

'Preflight' plus the first example ('A visible live market can proceed to forecast and quote') gives a clear condition for calling it before trading/quoting. There are no explicit exclusions or named alternatives, and it does not say what to do instead when the market is not operable beyond the MARKET_NOT_FOUND note.

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