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

The description discloses what the tool returns (top markets, cross-venue divergences, venue coverage, risk flags) and its data sources. Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) are not contradicted. It adds value beyond annotations by describing the synthesis behavior, though it doesn't cover failure modes or rate limits.

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 the core action, followed by usage examples, output summary, and an explicit alternative. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description states what the returned brief includes (top markets, divergences, coverage, risk flags), which is helpful. It does not detail response format or error handling, but the tool is a specialized brief generator and the description is adequate for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

The main description does not explain any parameters except implicitly through topic examples. With only 25% schema description coverage (only min_volume has a description), the description should compensate but doesn't. limit, real_money_only, and topic are not directly addressed, leaving a significant gap.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Generate a synthesized brief' for a topic, combining multiple data sources. It names specific venues (Polymarket, Kalshi, Limitless, Manifold) and gives example queries, making it highly specific. It also distinguishes from search_markets by explicitly saying 'For raw market lists use search_markets'.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use for analytical queries like...' with concrete examples. It also tells when not to use it by pointing to an alternative ('For raw market lists use search_markets'), satisfying the when/when-not criteria.

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