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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context about the return structure (markets with outcomes, token ids, bid/ask, tick size, URL) and the live nature of odds, which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions found.

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 exactly two sentences with zero redundancy. It front-loads the primary purpose ('Find events and their markets') and packs the filtering and return details efficiently. Every word contributes.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (markets with odds, token IDs, etc.). It does not cover pagination defaults or behavior, but the schema specifies offset and limit defaults, so nothing critical is missing. For a search tool, this is sufficiently complete.

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 schema documents all 7 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions filtering by query, category, sort, and status, and references predict://categories for slugs. This is a small enhancement, but not enough to raise above the baseline 3.

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 it finds events and markets with live odds, using a specific verb 'find' and resource 'events and their markets'. It differentiates from siblings like get_event, get_orderbook, and get_price_history by being a search tool rather than a retrieval-by-ID tool.

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 explains filtering options (query, category, sort, status) and gives a concrete example of a category reference (predict://categories). However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like get_event (e.g., when you have a specific event ID), so it falls short of full exclusion guidance.

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