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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the ranking (by volume), scoping (live events), and return fields (title, description, start/end dates, URL). It does not explicitly say 'read-only,' but the verb 'List' conveys a safe read operation, and the return field list adds useful context.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. The first sentence states what it does; the second explains the relationship to sibling tools and lists return fields. Every sentence earns its place with zero waste.

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 return values; it does, listing title, description, dates, and URL. It also mentions live events and ranking. Minor gaps like the direction of 'ranked by volume' or default limit are covered by the schema, so the description is nearly complete for a simple list tool.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all parameters (async, limit, includeClosed). The description does not need to add parameter details; it is consistent with the schema but adds no extra semantic value beyond the schema.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'List live Polymarket events, ranked by volume.' It clearly differentiates from siblings by stating it lists events (groups of markets), not individual markets, and points to polymarket_markets for pricing.

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?

Explicit usage guidance: 'use it to discover a topic, then polymarket_markets to price it.' This gives a clear workflow and names the alternative sibling tool, making it unambiguous when to use this tool.

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