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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses critical behaviors: quotes include fetched_at and age_seconds for freshness checking, both venues rate-limit hard (so quotes may not be live), one bad ref fails only that entry while the rest succeed, and there is a 50-ref limit. These are exactly the behavioral traits an agent needs to know, well beyond any schema information.

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 focused paragraph that front-loads the purpose, then adds essential operational details (format, rate limits, error handling, limit) without redundancy. Every sentence contributes value, and the example output further clarifies behavior without adding fluff.

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 moderate complexity (batch processing, partial failures, rate limits, output shape), the description is complete: it explains input format, limits, failure semantics, freshness metadata, and gives an example output shape. The presence of an output schema is supplemented by the example, making the tool fully understandable without further investigation.

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?

The input schema only lists 'refs' without any description (0% coverage). The description compensates fully by defining the ref format as 'platform:ident' with concrete examples (kalshi:KXFED-25JUN-H, polymarket:some-market-slug) and specifying the 50-ref limit. It turns an opaque array of strings into a well-understood parameter.

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 clearly states the tool fetches current price/volume for several markets at once, with the verb 'Call this when' and specific scenarios. It explicitly contrasts with foresea_analyze_market, making its unique purpose unmistakable.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('a watchlist, a portfolio, "check on these 5 markets"') and when not to ('instead of calling foresea_analyze_market once per market'), directly naming the alternative. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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