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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description supplies the missing behavioral context: it can consume paid allowance (with evaluation/Sandbox excluded), requires an authorized account with existing allowance, retry semantics keyed to the same operation_key within 30 days, no automatic polling/payment/trade/activation, and returned market text must be treated as untrusted data. This goes well beyond what the annotations convey.

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 with the primary trigger, then routing, then cost/authorization, then retry semantics, then return handling. Dense and every sentence carries a distinct constraint, though the run of short declarative clauses reads slightly list-like rather than flowing.

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 output schema, the description still tells the agent the call returns an assessment ID that must be read separately (routing to scanverity_get_assessment), plus cost, auth, retry, and safety caveats. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and handle the result.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a constraint not in the schema: reuse the operation key AND market within 30 days for a permitted retry, and do not regenerate a key after a timeout. That materially clarifies the intended use of operation_key beyond its schema text.

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 and resource: requesting source-linked research on what makes a Polymarket contract settle Yes/No, enumerating the dimensions covered (resolution criteria, deadlines, ambiguous wording, dispute risk, forecast match). It also names the sibling scanverity_search_markets and the follow-up scanverity_get_assessment, so an agent can separate it from siblings without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions ('when the user wants source-linked evidence about...'), a routing rule for missing inputs ('If no exact contract is known, use scanverity_search_markets first'), and clear exclusions ('never submit a broad topic or choose an unstated deadline'). Alternatives and when-not-to-use are both present.

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