pmus_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context: it returns 'compact' summaries with 'current best bid/ask', which tells the agent the output granularity and live pricing, and scopes to 'US events'. This goes beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every clause earns its place. The first sentence states the function; the second explains the return format and purpose. No redundancy or 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?

Given the existence of an output schema, the description does not need to detail the return structure. It covers the main parameter (query), the scope (US), the nature of results (compact, with bid/ask), and the follow-up intent. It omits any mention of limit/status nuances, but those are documented in the schema. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is only 33% (only query has a description). The tool description clarifies that query is a free-text search, aligning with the schema example. However, limit and status receive no additional explanation; their defaults and enum are in the schema, but the description does not compensate for the low coverage by explaining their semantics or typical use. This is acceptable but not outstanding.

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 verb ('Search'), a resource ('Polymarket US events'), and a clear outcome ('returns compact event + market summaries with current best bid/ask'). It also explains the downstream use ('pick a market slug for deeper tools'), which distinguishes it from the list/get siblings like pmus_list_events and pmus_get_event.

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 implies the primary use case: when you have free-text input and need to identify a market slug for further investigation. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the phrase 'so you can pick a market slug for deeper tools' signals it is a precursor, not a terminal analysis tool. This is clear enough for an agent to know when to reach for it.

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