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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond them by disclosing the result shape (all outcomes, current prices, 24h volume, end dates) and the meaning of status='resolved' ('how they settled'), which matters because there is no output schema.

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, front-loaded with the primary directive 'Use this first when...', and every clause carries information (search modes, return fields, status usage). The middle sentence is dense and runs long, but nothing is filler; a small trim would earn a 5.

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 3-parameter read-only search with no output schema, the description covers the gaps that matter: when to reach for it, both query modes, what the response contains, and how to get resolved/settled markets. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the semantic intent of the query (topics, likelihood questions, bare market names) and by interpreting status='resolved' as past markets plus their settlement outcome, which the enum alone does not convey.

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 and resource ('Searches every Polymarket market by keyword ... or by a polymarket.com link') and enumerates what comes back (events, outcomes, prices, 24h volume, end dates, slug). It also positions itself relative to the siblings by framing itself as the first call whose slug feeds 'the other tools', so an agent can distinguish it from pm_market/pm_book without opening a schema.

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?

Gives explicit trigger conditions: 'Use this first when the user asks what Polymarket thinks about a topic, how likely something is, or names a market without a link.' That is strong when-to-use guidance, but it never states when NOT to use it or names a concrete alternative tool for a specific case, so it falls short of the 5 bar.

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