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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses a scope constraint — only active events and open markets are searched, so closed/archived items won't appear — but says nothing about result ordering, return shape, or rate limits.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource and search mechanism front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the gaps noted elsewhere.

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 simple two-parameter search tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core intent but omits what a result looks like (events vs. markets nesting) and how limit interacts with results. Adequate, but not 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 50%: q is documented in the schema with examples, while limit (default 5, max 20, min 1) has no description. The phrase 'by keyword' adds only marginal clarification over the schema's own example text, so the description does not fully compensate for the gap.

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?

Specific verb (search) + resource (active Polymarket events and their open markets) + mechanism (by keyword). It is distinguishable from siblings like get_market and top_markets, though it never names them explicitly.

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 only implied by 'by keyword' — the description never states when to prefer this over get_market (a specific market), related_markets, or top_markets. No exclusions, prerequisites, or routing guidance are given.

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