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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, any rate limits, or what the response format looks like beyond implying a list of markets. The term 'probability swings' is undefined, leaving room for ambiguity about sorting and thresholds.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core idea without unnecessary words. It is appropriately brief for a simple tool.

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?

Despite the lack of an output schema, the description sufficiently implies the return value is a list of markets ranked by probability swings. Given the tool's low complexity (two optional parameters, no nested objects), the description is nearly complete, though it could benefit from mentioning that results are likely sorted by swing magnitude.

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%: both parameters (limit and timeframe) have descriptions, including defaults and constraints. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states it returns 'Markets with biggest probability swings' and adds 'momentum detection for trending events,' which clearly identifies the tool's function as identifying trending markets by probability changes. It distinguishes from siblings like list_markets or get_market_stats by focusing on probability swings, though it could be more explicit with a 'Get' verb.

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 phrase 'momentum detection for trending events' implies the tool is for detecting trending markets, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives such as get_market_stats or get_sentiment. It does not mention any exclusions or conditions for use.

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