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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Find' implies a read-only lookup, but the description does not disclose response format, pagination, rate limits, or authentication needs. It adds no behavioral context beyond the inherent meaning of 'Find'.

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 efficiently states the tool's purpose, inputs, and scope. Every word contributes value, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description only says 'equivalent markets' without specifying what the response contains or how results are structured. Inputs are fully covered by the schema, so this is adequate but incomplete for a caller expecting clear return-value semantics.

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% with each parameter already described, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'Polymarket market slug or Kalshi event ticker' merely restates the schema without adding value formats, examples, or usage nuances.

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'), names the resource ('equivalent markets across different prediction market platforms'), specifies the scope ('for sports events'), and identifies the required inputs ('Polymarket market slug or Kalshi event ticker'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like dome_markets or dome_sport_by_date.

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 gives clear usage context: use when you have a Polymarket slug or Kalshi ticker and need equivalent markets on other platforms. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the 'sports events' qualifier and specific input types make the intended scenario clear.

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