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

Annotations only cover readOnlyHint/openWorldHint, and the description goes far beyond them: it discloses the price is the crowd's bet not a truth verdict, that it does NOT classify dramatization/accuracy, that values come from a cron-refreshed cache up to ~2 hours stale, and that an abandoned cache adds cacheStale/cacheAgeHours. This is unusually rich behavioral context.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and return value, and each clause carries real signal (cache caveat, non-classification). It is dense and slightly long with embedded dashes, but almost no sentence is wasted.

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 carries the return burden and does it: YES probability, market match, marketId for follow-up, and cacheStale/cacheAgeHours failure signals. Nothing an agent needs to call and interpret it correctly is missing.

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?

One parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the schema names 'text' but explains nothing. The description implies it is 'a piece of news text' but adds no length limit, format, or content guidance beyond the schema field name; borderline for a single obvious input.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Map a piece of news text to the relevant Polymarket market') and the exact return (current YES probability), and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling by naming get_market as the live-price alternative. An agent can tell what this does without opening anything.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use (map news to a market anchor), when-to-not-rely (stale/abandoned cache), and the alternative (call get_market with the returned marketId before trading). Routing conditions are spelled out, not inferred.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered, and the description goes further by disclosing the cache-vs-Gamma fallback path — real behavioral context an agent can't get from structured fields. It stops short of noting failure behavior for unknown ids or how deep the orderbook snapshot is.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then the fallback caveat. Every clause carries information; no filler.

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 usefully enumerates the return payload (details, price, orderbook) and explains the cache fallback. Missing only edge-case context such as not-found handling or orderbook depth, which is minor for a read-only lookup.

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 coverage is only 50%: the 'outcome' parameter is richly documented in the schema (including its interaction with BUY_YES/SELL_YES), but marketId has no description anywhere. The description says lookup is 'by id' and hints that ids may fall outside the cached top-volume set, but never clarifies the id format, so compensation is partial.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('look up a specific Polymarket market by id') plus the returned artifacts (details, live price, orderbook snapshot for ONE outcome token). Nothing overlaps with the unrelated sibling check_news, so an agent can place it immediately.

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?

Implies the usage context (fetch a single market by id, with an automatic Gamma fallback for uncached ids) but never states when to prefer this over alternatives or what prerequisites exist. The when-to-use detail ('match to the side you intend to trade') lives in the schema, not the description.

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