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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the 'active' filter and the Polygon chain, but says nothing about pagination semantics despite an afterCursor parameter, nothing about the implicit $10,000 default liquidity floor shaping results, and nothing about rate limits or auth needs.

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?

A single sentence with zero filler; the resource and scope are front-loaded and the returned fields follow immediately.

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 six-parameter listing tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but adequate on the surface level. It omits how paging and sorting interact, the effect of the default liquidity filter on result sets, and any differentiation from the sibling search and rank tools.

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 83%, so the schema already documents limit, search, sortBy, sortDirection, afterCursor, and minLiquidityUsd, including defaults. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what is in the schema, so the high-coverage 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?

Specific verb plus resource plus scope: 'List active Polymarket prediction markets on Polygon', and it names the returned fields (volume, liquidity, outcome prices). It does not differentiate itself from close siblings like search_polymarket_markets, rank_polymarket_markets, or get_polymarket_market, so an agent must infer which lister to pick.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no exclusions. With siblings search_polymarket_markets and rank_polymarket_markets present, the description never says when this plain list is preferable to a search or a ranked screen.

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