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 value beyond that: it clarifies the row is public with no account-specific filtering, that it covers market incentives broadly, and that a missing match returns not found.

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 tight sentences: what it fetches, the scoping caveat and error behavior, then the alternatives. Front-loaded with the core action and zero filler.

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 explained. Combined with annotations covering safety and the description covering scope, rejection behavior, and sibling routing, nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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% for the single condition_id parameter, so the schema carries the semantics. The description reiterates 'one Polymarket market condition_id' but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema already 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 (Fetch) and resource (the public CLOB liquidity-rewards row for one Polymarket market condition_id), and scopes it to a single market. An agent can distinguish it from siblings like polymarket_rewards_markets without opening either 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?

Explicitly names two alternatives (polymarket_rewards_markets to discover eligible markets, polymarket_market_detail for general metadata) and the conditions that select them, plus the not-found case. Routing is fully specified.

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