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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real operational context beyond them: concrete defaults (limit=25, offset=0, order=volume24hr, descending), hard caps (limit 100, offset 10000), and that closed is an optional upstream filter. Return format and pagination-token behavior remain unstated.

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?

Three sentences, all load-bearing: what it returns first, then defaults/caps, then sibling routing. Zero filler and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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-value detail is unnecessary. The description supplies everything else an agent needs to call it correctly: what rows contain, defaults, cap constraints, the optional closed filter, and which sibling to choose instead.

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 coverage is 100% with per-parameter descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description largely restates the same defaults and caps (limit 100, offset 10000) and adds only the clarification that ascending=false means descending, which is marginal added meaning.

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 ('List normalized public Polymarket Gamma market rows') and names the returned fields (outcome prices, liquidity, volume). It explicitly distinguishes itself from polymarket_events and polymarket_market_detail, so an agent can select it without opening a 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?

The final sentence routes to alternatives with clear conditions: polymarket_events for browsing containing events, polymarket_market_detail for a single market. It gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance (e.g., why not use polymarket_search), so it falls just short of the top band.

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