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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: works for open/closed/resolved markets, caps at up to 40 outcomes with mutually exclusive ones ranked, and falls back to up to 3 nearest open markets on no match. Also discloses framing caveats (crowd forecasts, not advice) that the readOnlyHint alone would not convey.

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?

Front-loaded with the trigger condition, then inputs, then returns, then exclusion — a logical order with no filler sentences. It is dense and long for one parameter, and the return-field enumeration partially duplicates the output schema.

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?

Covers resolution rules, status, fallback behavior, and limits (40 outcomes), so an agent knows what it will get and what to do when a query misses. Slightly over-complete on return fields given an output schema exists, but nothing an agent needs 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% and the schema already enumerates slug, link, condition id, and question-in-words for the single `market` parameter, so the description largely restates it. Baseline 3 applies; no new syntax or normalization detail is added.

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+resource (get current odds / details of one market or event) and scopes it to a single market, which clearly separates it from sibling list/aggregate tools like search_markets, get_trending_markets, and get_market_flow.

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 concrete trigger phrasings ("what are the odds for the Fed decision", "show me this market", "did the 2024 election market resolve") and an explicit exclusion ("Do not call this when the user asks which market to buy"). It stops short of naming the alternative sibling tools for the excluded cases, so routing is implied rather than explicit.

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