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

Annotations indicate it's a read-only, open-world operation, but the description adds nothing about the similarity mechanism, whether it's based on upstream title/slug matching, or the fact that with zero required parameters the agent must provide at least one identifier. No rate limit, auth, or result format info beyond what annotations and output schema imply.

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 extremely short (4 words) and front-loaded, but it's too terse to be helpful. It doesn't waste words, but it also doesn't earn its place by conveying anything useful beyond the 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?

With 7 optional parameters, a similarity search mechanism, and no explanation of how to seed the search, the description is inadequate. It doesn't clarify that at least one of the identifier parameters is required for meaningful results, nor does it describe the similarity basis. An agent would struggle to use this 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 schema fully documents all 7 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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 'Polymarket similar events.' states a resource (Polymarket events) and an attribute (similar), but is not a clear verb+resource phrase. It's ambiguous whether this finds events similar to a given event, or lists events that are similar in general. It doesn't clearly distinguish from siblings like polymarket_search or polymarket_events.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like polymarket_events, polymarket_search, or polymarket_event_detail. No indication of the prerequisite that at least one of the event-identifying parameters (id, event_slug, event_title, market_slug, market_title) is needed to seed the similarity search.

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