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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds extensive context beyond that: fan-out patterns, resolver contract with match confidence, parent event extractor, safety short-circuit for low-confidence matches, market_closed_or_inactive status, wide-spread tradeability notes, and cancellation rule risk with EV impact. It also discloses blocking behavior and the recurring pure-rules loss from flat-50¢ void settlements. No contradiction with annotations.

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 quite long (~700 words) but uses all-caps section labels (CLASSIFIERS, FAN-OUT EXAMPLES, RESPONSE SHAPES, etc.) to organize content. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, but the extensive examples and edge-case explanations make it verbose. It is well-structured but not concise.

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 must explain return values and behavior comprehensively. It does so, covering response shapes for market/analysis/evidence, resolver contract fields, parent_event details, news fallback fields, safety statuses, closed-market handling, wide-spread warnings, and cancellation rule semantics. This is exceptionally complete for a complex tool.

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% for all three parameters. The tool description restates the market parameter's accepted formats but does not add information beyond what's already in the schema. The depth and include_raw parameters are fully described in the schema and not expanded in the description. Thus the description provides no additional parametric value over 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Research a Polymarket bet by pulling the relevant Pipeworx data for it in one call.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by the one-call fan-out mechanism and category-specific data packs. It also lists explicit user intents like 'should I bet on X' and 'what does the data say about Y'.

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 gives clear context and use cases ('Use for "should I bet on X"...'), and even provides guidance on when to inspect resolver contract and cancellation risk. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a full when/when-not/alternatives specification.

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