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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. The verb 'Find' implies a read-only operation with no side effects, and mentioning the YES price spread adds some output context. However, it doesn't disclose the meaning of 'both venues' or any limitations (e.g., threshold impact), though the output schema covers return format. It's acceptable but not rich.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It efficiently states the core purpose and key output.

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 description is too brief for a tool with two parameters and no annotations. It fails to explain what 'both venues' refers to, what threshold controls, or when to adjust the default. The existence of an output schema mitigates but does not eliminate the gap.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, and the description provides no explicit meaning for limit or threshold. The phrase 'YES price spread' may indirectly relate to threshold but is ambiguous. Parameters are effectively undocumented.

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 clear verb 'Find' and specifies the resource 'same real-world event on both venues' and the key output 'YES price spread.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_market and list_markets, which likely operate on a single venue.

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 when you need cross-venue event matching, contrasting with sibling tools for individual market retrieval or listing. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives directly.

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