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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: what the evidence pack contains (relevance, source tier, corroboration, per-asset impacts), the $0.01/call cost, and the 'information, not a forecast' caveat. It could say more about rate limits or result staleness, but it goes well beyond 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?

Front-loaded with the core operation and evidence contents, then usage, then alternative routing. It is slightly dense with parenthetical examples, but every sentence carries routing or behavior information.

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?

Covers purpose, evidence composition, cost, and sibling routing for a read-only lookup with a fully documented schema. It does not explain return shape or freshness limits, but no output schema exists and the description is otherwise self-sufficient.

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 schema already documents all three parameters in detail. The description adds only the resolution behavior (id/slug via Gamma API, text searched), which is marginal beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (resolves, returns) and resource (a Polymarket market's odds plus primary-source events), and differentiates from the sibling polymarket_top for discovery. An agent can tell exactly what the tool produces without opening the schema.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use ('before trading or quoting a probability', 'to detect a fresh primary event') and sensitive exclusions ('to discover markets use polymarket_top'). The alternative is named with the condition that selects it.

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