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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context the annotations do not: the bounded payload sizes (top 30 holders per side, last 100 trades) and what is deliberately excluded. It stops short of noting response size concerns or pagination/truncation behavior for those capped lists, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Three sentences, zero filler. The exclusion/routing sentence is front-loaded right after the payload summary, and the sequencing hint closes it. Every clause carries information.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must describe returns — and it does comprehensively, listing every major block of the response and explicitly marking two blocks as absent. Combined with one documented parameter and full annotation coverage, an agent has everything needed to select and call it.

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?

One parameter at 100% schema description coverage ('Market condition_id (hex string)'), so the schema carries the semantics. The description only references condition_id as the lookup key and adds no format, sourcing, or fallback guidance (e.g., how to obtain a condition_id). Baseline 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific verb ('deep-dive') and resource (one Polymarket market identified by condition_id), then enumerates exactly what the payload contains: question, category, outcomes with clob_token_ids, volumes, liquidity, price series, top 30 holders, last 100 trades, tape stats, resolution status. Nothing about it could be confused with polymarket_markets, polymarket_orderbook, or polymarket_tape.

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?

Explicitly names the alternatives and the conditions that select them: 'use polymarket_orderbook for quotes and polymarket_smart_money for the cohort', plus sequencing guidance 'use after polymarket_markets when the user asks about a specific market'. This is a textbook when/when-not routing.

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