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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the data is 'public' and comes 'from Gamma v1 data JSON', which is useful provenance, but it says nothing about rate limits, whether the upstream is a legacy v1 endpoint, or behavior on unknown addresses.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource and source stated up front and no wasted words. It is tight, though the extreme brevity is partly what leaves parameter and usage gaps.

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 re-explained. But with 0% schema coverage on three opaque pass-through parameters and no usage guidance, an agent cannot confidently construct the call, which is a substantial completeness gap for a data-fetching tool.

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 0% and all three parameters (path, query, params) are undocumented generically-typed objects/strings. The description implies an address is the key input but never maps it to a parameter or shows the expected path/query shape, leaving the agent to guess the wiring.

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 gives a specific verb ('returns') and resource ('public follower and following counts for one Polymarket address'), which is far more informative than the tool name alone. It does not, however, distinguish itself from other Polymarket sibling tools like polymarket_profile-style endpoints or explain its relationship to them.

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 guidance on when to reach for this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (does the address need to be a valid Polymarket proxy address?), and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the purpose sentence.

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