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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that payouts happen immediately, players can report a wrong result, and the action is free with a resolve_token, but it does not state whether resolution is irreversible, what permissions are required beyond token ownership, or what status the market enters afterward.

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 compact and front-loaded, with three sentences that each carry relevant information. The final sentence about the resolve_token is slightly abrupt but still earns its place by clarifying cost/access.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, five parameters, low schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is only partially complete. It covers the core purpose and some consequences, but it omits return behavior, error conditions, and full parameter semantics, leaving gaps an agent would need to infer.

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 low at 20%, so the description needs to compensate. It indirectly explains id as the market you created, token as your resolve_token, and source as the evidence for the outcome, but it does not explain the outcome parameter's yes/no enum or the option_id parameter for multiple-choice markets.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it resolves a market created with ask_the_crowd and requires a source for the outcome. It distinguishes itself from ask_the_crowd by referring to the creation relationship, though it does not explicitly contrast with read_my_question or other resolution siblings.

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 implies the use case: resolve a market you created, using a resolve_token. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of alternatives such as read_my_question, and no handling of edge cases like already-resolved markets.

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