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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses parallel fan-out across three venues, volume-based sorting, the returned data fields, and a per-call cost of $0.01 USDC. Missing are error/partial-failure behavior when a venue is unreachable and any rate-limit or auth notes.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, each contributing something (platforms, sorting, arbitrage use, return fields, cost). The second and third sentences overlap slightly on cross-platform matching, keeping it just short of maximal.

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 2-parameter read-style search tool with no output schema, the description covers return contents (probabilities, volume, liquidity, spreads), ordering, and pricing, which is nearly everything an agent needs. Only failure-mode and pagination behavior are unaddressed.

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 both parameters (query, limit) are documented in the schema, establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds no format, syntax, or defaulting detail beyond what the schema already states.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Cross-platform prediction market search') and enumerates the three platforms queried. It is clearly broader than single-venue siblings like polymarket_quote or drift_prediction_markets, but it never names those siblings explicitly, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 implies usage — compare odds, spot arbitrage — but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and never names an alternative such as prediction_market_arbitrage or prediction_market_odds, despite many closely overlapping siblings. Usage is inferable, not directed.

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