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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real behavior: a 30-market scan scope, a 15-minute refresh cadence, an evidence-thinness adjustment, and a low/medium/high confidence output rating. These freshness, scope and data-quality traits are not derivable from the annotations.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and each clause (scan scope, cadence, evidence tempering, confidence rating) carries distinct meaning. It is dense as a single long sentence but has no filler; the disclaimer earns a short trailing slot.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description only needs to convey scope, cadence and the nature of the returned signal, all of which it does. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% with both optional parameters (limit, category) fully described and one enum constrained, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 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?

States a specific verb (scans/returns) and resource (Polymarket markets where smart money disagrees with the price-implied probability), with a precise signal definition. This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_smart_money or get_whale_trades, which surface trader activity rather than price/smart-money divergence.

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 implies a screening use case (finding mispriced markets) and gives a clear trigger condition (money implies a different probability than price), but never states when to prefer this over alternatives such as get_smart_money or list_attention_markets. Usage must be inferred rather than being explicitly routed.

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