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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on what the detail payload covers, freshness, or whether a missing market returns null. No contradiction, but zero added behavioral value.

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?

Very short and not padded, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — the single fragment conveys almost no actionable information.

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 for a lookup tool that is one of many closely related polymarket_* siblings, the definition provides no disambiguation, no identifier precedence, and no hint of what 'detail' encompasses.

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% and all three params are self-documented in the schema ('Polymarket market id/slug/condition id'). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 market detail' essentially restates the tool name without a real verb or resource distinction. It doesn't say whether it returns a single market's metadata, pricing, or status, nor how it differs from polymarket_markets, polymarket_clob_market, or polymarket_event_detail.

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 usage guidance at all: it doesn't say when to call this versus explicitly named siblings like polymarket_markets or polymarket_market_tags, nor which of the three identifiers (id/slug/condition_id) should be preferred or whether one is required.

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