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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds useful conceptual context about events being groups of markets, but it does not disclose return format, pagination, ordering, or the read-only nature of the search operation. This is adequate but not rich.

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 concise: three sentences, no redundancy, with the primary action stated first. Every sentence adds value—purpose, domain context, and use case.

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 search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential domain distinction (events vs. markets) and the primary use case. It omits return value details, but this is somewhat less critical for a simple search operation. Overall, it is sufficient for an agent to select the tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning, but by explaining what events are, it helps the agent understand the object being searched, which indirectly aids parameter use.

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 Polymarket events' with a specific verb and resource. It further explains what an event is ('Events group related markets together') and provides a use case ('Great for discovering market clusters'), which distinguishes it from sibling searches like 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 gives clear context for when to use this tool—discovering clusters of related markets—and implicitly contrasts with searching individual markets. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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