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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., that it returns a list of markets). It meets the minimum bar given annotations but does not enhance understanding.

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?

Description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately short for a straightforward search tool. Could include a brief note about result count or output, but conciseness is maintained.

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 search tool with a rich input schema and output schema available, the description is minimally complete. It lacks explanation of what the search returns (e.g., market titles, URLs) or how to interpret results. The presence of many sibling tools suggests more context would be helpful.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for all 5 parameters, including enums for category, status, sort_by. The description adds no new parameter-level information. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the work.

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 'Search prediction markets on Polymarket' clearly states the tool's action (search) and resource (prediction markets). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like detail, history, orderbook, etc., which focus on specific market data. However, it could be more specific about the scope (e.g., by query, filters).

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 alternatives. For example, it does not mention that this is the primary search entry point or that other tools are for individual market lookups. An agent would benefit from hints about workflow integration.

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