search

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that search spans three venues and that status "live" keeps markets still trading, but it does not explain ranking, result ordering, pagination, or whether venue defaults matter.

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 short, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every line earns its place by adding examples or filter semantics. There is no redundant restatement of the tool name or schema.

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 output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the read-only/open-world profile. Still, for a five-parameter search tool with 0% schema description coverage, the description omits venue semantics and limit behavior, leaving some invocation ambiguity.

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It usefully explains query examples, category as an archive category, and status "live", but it leaves venue values and limit behavior unexplained, including the schema's chainlink venue option.

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 gives a specific verb and resource scope: keyword search over Kalshi, Polymarket and Limitless series, events and markets. This distinguishes it from sibling listing/getting tools, but it does not explicitly name an alternative tool or clarify the boundary with list_markets/get_series.

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?

Usage is implied by 'by keyword' and reinforced with examples like "bitcoin 15 minute" and "NFL", so an agent can infer when search is appropriate. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance or comparison to sibling tools such as list_markets or get_series.

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