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 reinforces this in domain terms ('places no orders') and states scoping like default/cap on results, which is modest added value over the annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then constraints, then the sibling pointer. Dense and largely waste-free, though the inline enum listing is a bit list-like.

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 needn't be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. Parameters are fully documented. Complete for a read-only search tool; only richer usage framing 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description enumerates status and sort values and the limit default/cap, but this largely repeats what the schema already documents rather than adding syntax, format, or interaction 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 clear verb (Search) and resource (public Polymarket event results) with the required query parameter named. It also distinguishes itself from a sibling by naming polymarket_events for structured browsing. Minor ambiguity in 'event results' vs. events keeps it just short of top marks.

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 routes the agent to polymarket_events for structured event browsing, giving a real alternative. However it gives no positive when-to-use framing (e.g., exploratory vs. lookup) or exclusions beyond that single pointer.

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