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

Annotations already declare this as a safe, idempotent, read-only, open-world read. The description adds some useful semantic context about the shape of returned data (canonical marketState vs. derived lifecycleStage/stageDeadline), but says nothing about pagination limits, cursor reuse, or result-emptiness behavior, which is where the real opaqueness lies for a 9-parameter list endpoint.

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?

Front-loaded purpose followed by one dense field-semantics sentence and a short example; no padding. The backtick-heavy middle sentence is somewhat hard to parse but 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. However, for a 9-parameter paginated list with partial schema coverage, the description leaves pagination mechanics and several filters undescribed, making it only minimally 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 coverage is 67% and the description documents no input parameters at all — the only fields it names (marketState, lifecycleStage, stageDeadline) are outputs, not filters. It therefore fails to compensate for undocumented parameters such as chainId and pageSize, leaving that burden entirely on the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("List prediction markets on Problee") and the title adds the pagination/active scope, so the agent knows exactly what the tool returns. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from close siblings like problee_list_related_markets or problee_list_pending_resolution_markets.

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 conveyed only by example ("List live CRYPTO markets on Base") and by a field-selection hint ("prefer lifecycleStage for display"). There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use statement and no reference to alternative list tools, so the guidance is implied rather than stated.

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