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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that – no mention of whether it returns live odds, market sub-listings, or historical state, which is meaningful for a prediction-market detail call.

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 short, but it is under-specified rather than concise – a four-word fragment that earns no informational value and simply echoes the tool name.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the description still fails to place the tool within a crowded Polymarket family (events, markets, tags, tokens, rewards). Nothing tells the agent when this is the right entry point.

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 both id and slug are documented in the schema itself (including a slug example). With coverage this high the baseline of 3 applies; the description contributes no additional meaning about precedence between id and slug.

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?

"Polymarket event detail." restates the tool name and adds no verb, scope, or discriminating information. An agent cannot tell it apart from siblings like polymarket_events, polymarket_market_detail, or polymarket_event_tags without opening schemas.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no indication of what an 'event' is versus a 'market', and no named alternative. The slug example in the schema is the only routing signal, and it lives outside the description.

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