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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses cadence (every 15 minutes), coverage limits (only the 30 busiest open markets), the tempering against thin evidence, the confidence rating, and a data-not-advice caveat. It omits auth/permission needs, rate limits, and what happens when no markets qualify.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence that leads with the definition before the mechanics, plus a short disclaimer. Every clause carries information, though the detector logic and caveat in a single sentence make it slightly heavy.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must convey returns, and it does reasonably: it explains that qualifying markets come back with a low/medium/high confidence rating. It still doesn't describe the actual response fields or ordering, leaving a modest gap.

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 only 50%, and the description adds nothing about either parameter — it never references limit or category. The category enum is self-documenting, and limit's bounds (1-20) are in the schema, so the gap is real but not severe; a 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?

Specific verb+resource+scope: 'Polymarket markets where smart money disagrees with the odds,' with the exact detection criteria (skilled traders' implied probability vs. price). This clearly separates it from siblings like smart_money, skilled_whales and attention_markets.

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 strong context for when the tool is relevant: it explains the scan universe (30 busiest open markets), the refresh cadence (15 minutes) and the confidence filter, which tells an agent what questions it can answer. It never explicitly excludes cases or names a sibling to use instead, so it stops short of a 5.

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