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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a read-only list, specifies the ordering (by 24h volume), and describes filter behavior. It does not mention potential side effects, rate limits, or that results are live-changing, but for a simple list operation, this is reasonably transparent.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured. The opening sentence states the core purpose, the second sentence gives a use case, and the final two sentences efficiently explain the parameters. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

The tool is simple (a list operation with filters) and has an output schema, so return values are already documented. The description covers the main purpose, use cases, and two of three parameters. The missing `limit` explanation and lack of any mention of pagination or real-time updates are minor omissions that prevent a perfect score.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains `category` and `search` with specific allowed values and behavior, which adds meaningful context. However, it completely omits `limit`, leaving its purpose to be inferred from the parameter name and default. This is a clear gap given the low schema coverage.

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 starts with a specific verb-resource pair: 'List live prediction markets' and adds a distinguishing ordering criterion ('ordered by 24h volume'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_market_odds or find_best_price, which target specific market data rather than general browsing.

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?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: 'Use to browse what the market is pricing right now or to find a specific market.' It also explains the filtering capabilities. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it lacks full exclusion/alternative guidance.

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