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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context: the ranking methodology, the $1,000 real-money threshold, and the null-with-reason outcome when no qualifying market exists. It does not mention authentication or rate limits, but those are less critical for a read-only metric.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and is reasonably sized, but the phrase 'with N.' is cryptic and unexplained, disrupting structure. The nested parentheticals make the single long sentence dense, though most content 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?

With no output schema, the description should fully explain return values. It states that heat is 0-100 or null with a reason, which is helpful, but it does not clarify whether results are per side or how the response is structured, and 'with N.' remains undefined. For a one-parameter read-only tool this is adequate but incomplete.

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% for the single 'cid' parameter, which is documented as a Polymarket condition id in 0x + 64 hex format. The description reinforces 'condition id' but adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific metric (HEAT) for a specific resource (one Polymarket market) and defines the metric as the share of a side's $ from fresh or clustered wallets, ranked 0-100. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from any sibling tool.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any stated prerequisites beyond the condition id format already in the schema. The disclaimer 'Information only, not financial advice' is not usage guidance.

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