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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond them: it returns the best-matching market with implied probabilities and source links, which tells the agent the response is a single best match rather than an exhaustive list. It stops short of covering matching ambiguity or no-match behavior.

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 core action, then trigger conditions, then an example, then the routing caveat. Every sentence carries information and there is no filler.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, annotations covering safety, and an output schema that carries return structure, the description supplies everything else an agent needs: trigger scope, an example, and sibling routing.

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% and there is a single parameter whose schema description already gives an example question. The description reinforces that input is natural language with its own example, but adds no syntax or formatting detail beyond 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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (live prediction-market odds) scoped to real-world events phrased as questions, and explicitly names the sibling tools it is not (list_executable_opportunities, compare_executable_quotes). An agent can distinguish it from the many odds-adjacent siblings 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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use trigger (user asks about probability, odds, or likelihood of a future event) with concrete domains, and routes the differing use case ('which venue fills the SAME contract cheaper') to two named alternatives. Nothing is left to inference.

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