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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds useful behavior context: the tool uses a real search endpoint and returns an explicit no-match result rather than an unrelated default list. However, it omits pagination behavior, how prices are returned, any error semantics, and rate or authorization constraints.

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 with no filler: the first states the core behavior, the second explains a notable behavioral trait, and the third routes to the correct sibling alternative. The structure is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, and the tool has five ambiguous parameters. The description does not clarify which parameter holds the search keyword, how limit behaves, what activeOnly controls, or what the explicit no-match response looks like. These are material gaps for an agent to invoke 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?

The input schema has five string parameters, but their descriptions are tautological ('Q to process', 'Limit to process', etc.) and the tool description never maps 'keyword' to q, query, or search. The agent is left guessing which parameter is the actual keyword and what activeOnly or limit mean, so the description fails to add meaning beyond the schema.

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 a specific action: search Polymarket by keyword and get matching markets with prices. It also explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling x402-polymarket by noting that one browses by tag, so an agent can disambiguate without opening the schema.

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 an explicit alternative: 'Use x402-polymarket to browse by tag instead.' This tells the agent when to prefer this tool (keyword search) versus a sibling, satisfying the when/alternatives guidance.

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