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

Annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive) already establish the safety and idempotency profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds the shape of the returned state, notably the conditional presence of a dispute or a human-vote session and the available-action flags. It says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or failure modes, and much of the payload detail overlaps the output schema, so this is a modest rather than rich addition.

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?

Two dense sentences with zero filler: the resource and its contents come first, and the sibling comparison closes it out. Every clause carries 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be re-explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the one thing structured fields cannot: how this differs from problee_get_market_state. A brief note on chainId-omitted behavior would make it fully complete.

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 only two parameters, so the schema already carries address format and the chainId probing behavior. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (e.g., cross-chain lookup semantics when chainId is omitted), which is the expected baseline-3 outcome when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 resource (per-market public resolution state) and enumerates the concrete contents: stage, reason, deadlines, action flags, in-progress dispute, and open human-vote session. It also explicitly separates itself from problee_get_market_state, so an agent can choose between the two without opening either 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 final clause gives a clear selection rule against the nearest sibling: use this for the richer resolution-pipeline view when the bare marketState enum is insufficient. It is strong comparative guidance, though it never states exclusions or when the lighter sibling is actually the better choice.

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