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

The description goes beyond the readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true annotations by disclosing return behavior (match confidence buckets high/medium/low), explaining mismatch handling, and noting the venue exclusion. These are behavioral traits not present in annotations, adding meaningful context for the agent.

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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then exclusions/return details. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy or filler, making it highly efficient and well-structured.

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?

Without an output schema, the description adequately summarizes return values (confidence buckets and mismatch explanations) and covers essential context: purpose, usage examples, venue scope, and exclusions. It lacks explicit parameter details and error conditions, but for a query-based comparison tool, the provided information is nearly complete.

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 0%, so the description should compensate for parameter meaning. It indirectly clarifies the 'query' parameter via examples (e.g., 'what's the spread between Polymarket and Kalshi on X'), but it does not explicitly map parameters or explain 'limit'. This is a partial compensation, earning a baseline-adjacent but not high score.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Compare') with a specific resource ('the same event contract across Polymarket, Kalshi, and Limitless') and lists key comparison dimensions (probability, liquidity, settlement rules, venue type). It clearly differentiates from siblings like search_markets (searching) and market_brief (single-market detail) by focusing on cross-venue comparison.

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 description explicitly provides when-to-use guidance with example user intents ('what's the spread between Polymarket and Kalshi on X' or 'which venue has better liquidity for Y'). It also states an exclusion (Manifold) with a rationale, helping the agent avoid using this tool for play-money venues.

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