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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond 'get detailed info', which overlaps with annotations. It does not contradict 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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded and easy to parse. It wastes no words, though it is slightly underspecified.

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?

The description is too vague ('detailed info') given the tool has three parameters and an output schema. It does not clarify what specific information is returned, and while the output schema exists, the description should provide a better overview. Sibling tools like 'prices' and 'history' suggest specialization that this tool subsumes, but the description doesn't convey that.

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%, with clear descriptions for all three parameters. The overview description adds no additional parameter details; it already benefits from thorough schema documentation, so 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 'Get detailed info about a prediction market' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly indicating the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools like history, orderbook, prices, search, and trending by implying a general detail retrieval, but does not explicitly name these alternatives.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., for detailed info vs. history or orderbook). It lacks any contextual hints or exclusions.

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