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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful scope context (cross-platform matching) and implies a read-only lookup, but it fails to disclose return format, empty-result behavior, rate limits, auth needs, or why 'sport' appears in the description but not in the input schema.

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 a single front-loaded sentence that wastes few words and leads with the action verb. It loses a point because the 'by sport and date' clause is misleading given the schema, which slightly undermines the efficiency of the wording.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), so the bar is lower, but the description still leaves key gaps: it never explains what 'equivalent markets' means in terms of returned data, what happens when no matches exist for the date, or how the 'sport' mention relates to the single date input. These unresolved issues make the description incomplete for confident invocation.

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 schema covers the date parameter at 100%, giving a baseline of 3, but the description actively detracts by introducing 'sport' as a filter dimension that does not exist in the parameters. An agent may search for a sport parameter, not find one, and be confused about how to satisfy the stated 'by sport' scope.

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 uses a specific verb ('Find') plus a clearly defined resource ('equivalent markets across different prediction market platforms' for sports events), which conveys the core purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like dome_markets or dome_sports via the cross-platform equivalence angle. However, it claims filtering 'by sport and date' while the schema only accepts a date parameter, creating ambiguity about whether sport is actually a valid filter.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as dome_sports, dome_markets, or search_markets. There are no stated exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would help an agent choose this tool over its siblings.

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