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 does disclose one useful behavioral fact — results are capped at 10 markets — but says nothing about auth requirements (only implied by the schema's access_token), whether 'flags' means risk warnings, rate limits, or what happens when a slug matches nothing.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the highest-value information (full rule text + resolution source) and ending with the matching scope and batch limit. The 'PRO.' prefix is slightly cryptic but short enough not to waste space.

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 and no annotations, the description does reasonably well by enumerating the returned fields (rule text, resolution source, flags) and the 10-market cap. It still leaves auth failure behavior and the meaning of 'flags' unexplained, which matters for a tool that requires a subscriber token.

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 50%: access_token is documented in the schema, while market is undocumented there. The description partially compensates by explaining that market can be a slug or a search string, which is genuinely new information, but it gives no matching/precedence semantics.

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 names a specific verb and resource: returns full rule text, resolution source and all flags for Polymarket markets matched by slug or search. It clearly differs from the sibling rule_check by promising 'full' detail, though it never explicitly contrasts the two, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is only implied: the 'PRO' prefix hints at a paid tier and the 'full' framing hints at deeper output than rule_check. There is no explicit statement of when to pick this over rule_check or search_markets, and no prerequisites beyond the token parameter.

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