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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states that the tool is a scan that returns flagged markets, severity levels, matched categories/keywords, and volume, which implies a read-only, non-destructive operation. It does not mention rate limits, authentication, or pagination, but for a read-only scanner with a clear output contract, the disclosure is adequate.

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 two sentences: the first states the purpose and mechanism, the second specifies return values and a suggested follow-up action. Every sentence contributes new information; there is no filler or repetition.

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 tool is simple with two optional params, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the output contract (severity, matched categories/keywords, volume) and the workflow context (daily compliance triage, pairing with a sibling tool), making it effectively complete for invocation.

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?

The input schema already covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds context that the scan operates on top markets by 24h volume and lists the exact keyword categories, which loosely maps to the category parameter. It does not add additional syntax or format details, but no compensation is needed given the full schema coverage.

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 opens with 'Daily compliance triage' and uses a specific verb phrase: 'scans top Polymarket markets by 24h volume and flags those whose question text matches curated sensitive-keyword categories.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling market-scan tools by naming the source (Polymarket), the trigger (keyword categories), and the output (flagged markets with severity).

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 establishes a clear use case: daily compliance triage of high-volume Polymarket markets based on sensitive keywords. It also provides cross-tool guidance by instructing to pair HIGH-flagged results with pg_insider_signal_scan for active surveillance. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives, but the context is strong enough.

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