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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the returned data fields, which is useful, but does not mention any side effects (though browsing is likely read-only), rate limits, pagination behavior, or how the 'limit' parameter affects output. It does not contradict any annotations (none exist), but lacks explicit behavioral context beyond output content.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and output details, then a clear usage directive. No filler or redundancy; every word serves a purpose.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It covers purpose and usage well but lacks parameter semantics and behavioral details like result ordering or pagination. While the output fields are listed, an agent would struggle to know what to pass for q, query, or search.

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 descriptions are generic ('Q to process', 'Tag to process', etc.) and provide no real meaning. The description mentions 'tag/category' but does not explain how parameters like q, query, search, or limit function. Schema coverage is 100% but only in a perfunctory way; the description fails to compensate for the schema's vagueness.

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 the tool's function: 'Browse Polymarket markets by tag/category' and enumerates the output data (conditionId, CLOB token ids, outcome names/prices, bid/ask, end date, tick). It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming x402-poly-price, x402-poly-markets, and x402-polymarket-scan with their specific use cases.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use this tool ('when you know the category you want') and lists alternative tools with their distinct purposes (keyword search, busiest markets, whole events). This is model guidance that leaves no ambiguity about selection.

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