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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: degraded-mode behavior when the global registry is unavailable (limited result_scope, no outcomes), the warning that an empty subset never proves absence, and the account-free sibling fallback. It also discloses the cost/billing profile ('no report, payment or report-allowance consumption').

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 use case, then return shape, then fallbacks and exclusions. Dense but each sentence carries distinct information. Slightly over-long: the 'verify the exact contract' line and some caveat repetition could be trimmed without losing meaning.

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 correctly supplies the return shape (contract IDs, questions, deadlines, source links, conditional outcomes) as well as degraded-registry behavior, pagination/absence pitfalls, and the authorization fallback path. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly appears missing.

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 the schema already documents query format, limit bounds, date patterns and cursor semantics in detail. The description reinforces the query intent ('short topic keyword, usually in English') and the cursor/absence caveat, but largely restates what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource pair (search prediction markets) and immediately scopes the domain (politics, elections, ceasefire, economics, crypto, sport). It also enumerates what comes back (Polymarket contract IDs, questions, deadlines, source links), so an agent can distinguish it from siblings like scanverity_get_assessment or scanverity_offers without opening a 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?

Explicit trigger conditions ('when a user asks about prediction markets... even without naming Scanverity or providing a URL') plus explicit exclusions ('Not general news search, live odds, a probability forecast or a trading recommendation'). It also routes to the correct sibling when authorization is unavailable (scanverity_offers) and warns against guessing market IDs.

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