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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description goes far beyond these by revealing resolver contracts (market_match_score, alternatives, suggestions), safety blockers (low_confidence_match, market_closed_or_inactive), wide-spread market warnings, cancellation-rule risk, and news fallback mechanics. This level of disclosure is exceptional and gives the agent deep insight into edge cases and failure modes.

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 long and dense, but it is meticulously structured with uppercase section labels (CLASSIFIERS, FAN-OUT EXAMPLES, RESPONSE SHAPES, etc.) that make it scannable. Each sentence adds concrete information, and there is no filler. However, the length might overwhelm an agent, and a slightly tighter summary of the resolver contract could improve readability. Still, for the tool's complexity, it earns a high score.

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?

Even though there is no output schema, the description meticulously documents the response structure: result.market fields, analysis fields, evidence keyed by source, parent_event details, and status codes. It covers safety, cancellation rules, and edge cases like fallback attempts. Given the tool's complexity, the description is remarkably complete and self-contained, allowing the agent to invoke and interpret results correctly without additional context.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description enriches parameter meaning by explaining how the 'market' parameter accepts slug/URL/question text (already in schema) and elaborates on 'depth' with quick vs thorough fan-out behavior. For 'include_raw', it specifies when to use true (recompute deltas, cite observations) and the size implications. This added context pushes it above the schema-only baseline, though not to a 5 since the schema already does a good job.

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 identifies the tool's scope and differentiates from siblings by describing the bet classification and fan-out behavior. It also includes explicit use cases ('should I bet on X', 'what does the data say about Y'), leaving no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool with concrete query examples and provides a classifier list plus fan-out examples for various bet types (BTC, Fed, Hormuz, Yankees, etc.). It also gives negative guidance through safety notes (e.g., low-confidence matches block usage, closed markets return a specific status), helping the agent avoid misuse. It does not name alternative tools but clearly establishes the intended context.

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