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

Annotations already declare this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive lookup. The description adds useful cost context ($0.01) and the HTTP route, but it does not itself describe the x402 payment/retry behavior; that burden is carried by the schema's payment parameter description.

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 compact fragments, front-loaded with the user-facing question and followed by the endpoint and price. Every element carries information; there is no padding.

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?

For a read-only lookup with full parameter coverage and explicit safety annotations, the description is mostly complete: it states the question answered, the route, and the cost. A minor gap is that it does not state what is returned when no market has resolved, and there is no output schema to cover that case.

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 explains both q (optional topic, newest resolved if omitted) and the payment proof flow in detail. The description only hints at q through the URL-style '?q=', so it does not add meaning 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 asks a specific question — did a market resolve and which outcome won — and ties it to a specific endpoint. It is clearly distinct from sibling odds/book/history tools by focusing on final resolution status, though it does not name those siblings explicitly.

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 implied: call this when you need to know whether a market has resolved and which outcome won. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over get_polymarket_odds, get_polymarket_history, or find_polymarket_arb, nor any stated exclusions.

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