polymarket_search

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by stating the return structure and that no auth is required. However, there is a minor inconsistency: the description says it searches over 'events/markets/profiles' but the return key is 'tags' instead of 'markets', leaving the exact response composition slightly muddy. It also omits any mention of pagination or ordering, but with annotations present this is acceptable.

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 and front-loaded: the main purpose is in the first sentence, followed by the return structure and auth requirement. Every line adds value, there is no fluff, and it fits within a compact length appropriate for a search tool.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, what it returns, and authentication requirements. The return structure is explicitly listed, which is helpful in the absence of an output schema. The minor mismatch between searched entities and returned result keys slightly reduces completeness, but the overall context is sufficient 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 schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters (q, events_status, limit_per_type), each with a clear explanation. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema, but that is acceptable given the high schema coverage. The baseline of 3 applies because the description does not need to compensate for missing documentation.

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 action ('Site-wide search') with a clear resource scope ('events/markets/profiles') and method ('free-text query'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that fetch specific entities (e.g., polymarket_market, polymarket_events). The verb and subject are immediately actionable.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you need to search across multiple entity types by free text, rather than retrieve a known item with a specific ID. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the context of 'site-wide search' is sufficient for an agent to select it appropriately. No misleading guidance is present.

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