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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by naming what comes back (question, condition id, slug), which matters because there is no output schema, but it says nothing about behavior when the token id is unknown or not a market outcome token.

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?

One tight sentence with the resource and the identifying input front-loaded and the returned fields parenthetically grouped. Nothing is padded, though the fragmentary phrasing is slightly less scannable than an explicit verb-first statement.

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 trivial one-parameter read with no output schema, the description covers what the tool resolves and what fields the caller should expect. The only real gap is failure/not-found behavior, which is minor at this complexity level.

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% and the single parameter is documented as 'outcome token id (decimal)'. The description corroborates this by naming the same key, but adds no format, source, or validation detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 resource (the Polymarket market) and the lookup key (an outcome token id), making the reverse-resolution purpose clear. It is phrased as a noun fragment rather than a verb+resource, but an agent can still tell exactly what it does and none of the unrelated siblings (exports, subscriptions, fills) overlap.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no stated alternatives, and no prerequisites. For a simple single-purpose lookup this is tolerable, but the description offers nothing to help an agent decide between this and other calls.

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