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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds value by explaining that results are 'unified' across multiple venues and include 'risk flags,' which goes beyond the basic safety profile and gives a sense of the aggregated behavior.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by use cases and alternatives. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or 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?

With no output schema, the description responsibly enumerates the return fields ('title, current probability, volume, liquidity, expiration, source venue, and risk flags'). Combined with usage context and sibling differentiation, the description is complete for this search tool.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage and the tool description provides no parameter-level detail. 'query' is vaguely implied by 'queries' but the important distinction of 'real_money_only' (filtering to real-money venues) is not explained, nor is 'limit' behavior. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.

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 it 'Search live prediction markets and event contracts' across named venues, immediately distinguishing it from siblings. It lists concrete use cases and output fields, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use for queries on...' enumerates typical search scenarios, and directly names alternatives via 'For topic synthesis use market_brief; for browsing trending markets use discover_markets.' This fully clarifies when to choose this tool over siblings.

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