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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions filtering and 'Find active markets,' implying a default of active-only results. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, sorting details, or response structure. For a read-only tool, the risk is moderate, but richer behavioral context would be beneficial.

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 concise sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose, lists representative filters, and states the use case, making it economical and well-structured.

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 description gives a general sense that the tool returns matching markets but does not specify output format, pagination, or fields returned. Given there is no output schema, this is a gap, but the well-documented parameters partially compensate for the lack of detail.

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?

With all 9 parameters described in the schema (100% coverage), the description adds little beyond summarizing a few key filters (tags, volume, liquidity). It does not clarify parameter interactions or provide additional meaning beyond the schema's already detailed descriptions.

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 ('Search') and resource ('Polymarket prediction markets'), clearly stating its purpose. It also positions itself as a discovery tool ('Perfect for market discovery and analysis'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'analyze_market' or 'get_market' that focus on individual 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 phrase 'Perfect for market discovery and analysis' provides clear context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or situations to avoid, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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