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 the temporal 'currently eligible' framing, but says nothing about pagination, cursor semantics, or default dating that the schema implies — modest added value against the lowered bar.

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?

Two tight sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the exclusion clause placed after it. Every phrase earns its place.

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 an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and safety is covered by annotations. The description is nearly sufficient for invocation, but omits pagination/cursor behavior and date defaults that matter for a 7-param listing endpoint.

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 7 parameters are already fully documented upstream. The description adds no syntax, defaults, or enum guidance beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (List), resource (Polymarket markets eligible for liquidity rewards), and scope (including reward details). The closing clause distinguishes it from price-oriented siblings like polymarket_markets by explicitly excluding prices and trade outcomes.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use (discover incentive markets) and when-not (not for prices or trade outcomes), which is stronger than most. It stops short of naming a concrete sibling alternative (e.g., polymarket_rewards_market singular vs. this listing), leaving that routing to inference.

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