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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and external-lookup profile is covered. The description adds the useful constraint that a single seed must be supplied, but discloses nothing further about result fidelity, ranking behavior, or limits, so it sits at the lower bar appropriate when annotations do the heavy lifting.

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, front-loaded with the action and seed requirement before the sibling routing. No sentence is wasted.

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 no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description covers the seed requirement and alternatives, leaving only minor detail about limits/filtering to the schema, which is acceptable.

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 baseline is 3, but the phrase 'provide one seed identifier or title field' conveys that the several seed-like fields (id, event_slug, event_title, market_slug, market_title) are mutually exclusive alternatives, which the schema itself does not state. That is meaningful added semantics.

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 and resource ('Find Polymarket events similar to a known event or market') and name-checks the sibling tools it is distinct from, so an agent can separate it from polymarket_search, polymarket_events, and polymarket_event_detail without opening any schema.

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 an explicit prerequisite ('provide one seed identifier or title field') and routes the agent to alternatives for the adjacent tasks: polymarket_search/polymarket_events for discovery and polymarket_event_detail for a single full record. The condition that selects this tool versus those siblings is clear.

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