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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits itself. It only promises 'detailed information' without specifying what that includes (e.g., fields, return shape), any permissions needed, or operational behavior like rate limits. The tool's side effects (if any) are not addressed.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently states the action and resource, making it easy to parse.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should clarify what 'detailed information' entails and how the response is structured. It does not, leaving the agent uncertain about expected return values or error handling. The tool is simple, but the vagueness prevents full contextual completeness.

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 fully documents the single 'id' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra semantic meaning beyond the schema, such as how to obtain the ID or any restrictions on its format.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('get') and resource ('specific market'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search-markets, which imply a broader query. The qualifier 'specific' indicates a single-market lookup by ID.

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 a particular market ID is known, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over search-markets or other siblings. There are no references to alternatives or exclusions.

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