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

Annotations already cover readOnly/openWorld safety, but the description adds meaningful extra context: credential-free access, normalized output, and keyset-cursor pagination behavior. It doesn't describe rate limits or result shape, but has via output schema.

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?

It is front-loaded with the purpose sentence, which is good, but then spends most of its length enumerating enum values that the schema already publishes, which is redundant bulk rather than value.

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 and rich annotations, the description need not explain return values. It covers the parameters and an alternative, leaving only the predictions-vs-events distinction underspecified.

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 schema already documents every parameter. The description merely re-lists the same enum values and repeats the cursor/limit text verbatim, adding no new meaning beyond the structured fields.

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 ('Returns normalized event rows for the Polymarket /predictions page') and names the underlying source. However, it never clarifies how a 'prediction' differs from the events it says to get via polymarket_events, so the scope boundary is muddy.

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?

It names one sibling ('Use polymarket_events to list Polymarket events') but gives no condition that selects one over the other, and the distinction is puzzling since this tool itself returns event rows. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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