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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that the tool lists live events, ranks by volume, and returns title, description, dates, and URL. However, it does not mention potential rate limits, pagination, or explicitly note that it is a read-only operation beyond the verb 'list.'

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 three concise sentences: the first states the action and ranking, the second explains the relationship to the sibling tool, and the third lists the return fields. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 simple list tool with optional parameters, the description covers purpose, usage context, and return fields. No output schema is needed since fields are described. It lacks details on the async parameter, but that is already in the schema. Adequately complete for its complexity.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, so the description does not need to add much. It does not elaborate on how 'limit' or 'includeClosed' affect results, but the schema already explains these parameters adequately.

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 uses the specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'live Polymarket events, ranked by volume.' It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool polymarket_markets by explaining that an event groups several related markets and that users should use polymarket_markets for pricing.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance by stating 'use it to discover a topic, then polymarket_markets to price it,' naming an alternative tool and indicating the sequential workflow. It does not explicitly cover when-not-to-use cases, but the guidance is clear enough for a simple list tool.

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