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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: it names the exact return fields (question, slug, outcomes with prices, CLOB token ids, liquidity, end date) and clarifies that prices are 0..1 probabilities. This helps set expectations without contradicting the read-only annotation.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler: purpose, search/filter capabilities, and return format are all front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place and the description remains skimmable for an agent.

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 no output schema present, the description correctly enumerates the returned fields and even specifies the probability scale, which an agent needs to interpret results. Parameter defaults like limit/offset are covered by the schema, and the read-only behavior is covered by annotations. The only notable gap is not explaining the default behavior when no query/filter is supplied, but this is minor.

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 baseline is 3; the schema already documents every parameter. The description adds a bit of mapping by referring to 'live-game' (live) and 'sport filters' (tag_id), but it does not provide any deeper semantics beyond what the schema already gives. It neither harms nor substantially improves on 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 states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Swop prediction markets'), and adds 'by topic' plus 'Polymarket-backed' to establish scope. It further distinguishes itself from sibling market tools by enumerating free-text search over question/event/outcomes/tags and live-game/sport filters, which separates it from swop_get_event_markets and swop_get_prices.

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 usage context: topic-based search with optional live-game and sport filters. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use this tool, leaving the agent to infer how it differs from swop_get_event_markets or swop_get_taxonomy. This is implied usage, not explicit routing.

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