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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure and does well by detailing the normalized return shape and preservation of raw venue fields. It explains why this tool is useful (avoiding price format differences), adding genuine behavioral context beyond the schema. It does not cover error handling or rate limits, but for a non-destructive search this is adequate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence earns its place. It efficiently covers the cross-venue benefit, the normalized output fields, and the raw-field preservation without unnecessary detail.

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?

Given the 6 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a solid summary of the normalized output shape, which is the key non-obvious context. It does not explain async behavior or default filtering, but those are well-documented in the input schema. The overall description is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool returns and when to use it.

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 does not add meaning to parameters beyond what the input schema already provides; it focuses on output shape. The mention of preserved raw fields aligns with includeRaw but does not introduce new 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 states a specific verb ('Search') with clear resources ('live prediction markets across Polymarket and Kalshi') and a distinctive normalized output. It explicitly distinguishes itself from single-venue sibling tools like polymarket_markets and kalshi_markets by offering both in one call.

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 clearly indicates the primary use case: searching both venues simultaneously and avoiding format reconciliation. It does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools, but the cross-venue context is strongly implied and sufficient for a search tool.

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