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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the search behavior, the returned fields, the 'facts only' nature, and importantly the cost of $0.01 per call plus the free-on-empty/failure policy. It does not mention rate limits or auth details, but the key operational behaviors are covered.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose, followed by useful operational details: output fields, disclaimer, cost, and credit acquisition. It is slightly longer than necessary but every sentence contributes something an agent needs to decide whether to call the tool and what to expect.

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, the description lists the main returned fields and explains cost and failure pricing, which is important context. For a two-parameter search tool, this covers the essential selection and invocation guidance, though it omits details about response structure or error behavior.

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 description adds a little context by saying the search is 'matching a question or topic' and lists output fields, but it does not explain q or limit beyond what the schema already says. No additional parameter-level meaning is provided.

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 searches for live prediction markets from Polymarket AND Kalshi matching a question or topic, and lists the relevant output fields. It is specific enough to convey the core operation, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools such as pm_odds or pm_ticker_events.

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 when to use the tool: when a user asks for live prediction markets matching a question or topic, with cross-exchange coverage. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, leaving the routing decision to the agent's inference.

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