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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's '(read-only)' merely repeats that. It adds nothing about what statuses can be returned, whether it errors on unknown markets, or how the resolution lifecycle is represented.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no filler, so it is concise and front-loaded. But it is essentially the title duplicated, so brevity comes at the cost of any substantive content.

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 described, but the crowded resolution-related sibling namespace makes disambiguation essential and the description provides none. For a market-scoped read in this tool family, it is under-specified.

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% and both parameters (chainId, marketAddress) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which puts it at the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 restates the title verbatim, specifying a verb ('Get') and resource ('resolution status for a market'), which is clear on its own. However, it gives no differentiation from closely named siblings such as problee_get_market_resolution_state, problee_get_market_operability, and problee_get_claim_status, so an agent cannot tell which one returns which facet of resolution.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the obvious alternatives in the sibling set. The only hint is the parenthetical '(read-only)', which is not a usage rule.

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