validate_market_question

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses an important behavioral quirk: without timing parameters, validation may falsely pass invalid markets. It also states what it returns (blocked status and reason). It does not explicitly say it's read-only, but 'BEFORE attempting to create' implies that. This is useful beyond basic purpose.

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 compact and well-structured: a clear one-sentence purpose, a one-sentence return behavior, and an important usage warning. Every sentence adds value, and the 'IMPORTANT' note is appropriately highlighted without padding.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, key behavioral caveat, and critical parameter dependencies, which is sufficient for a validation tool with a moderately complex schema. It does not describe the exact return structure, but with no output schema, this is a minor gap. Overall, it provides enough context to use the tool safely.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic context by explaining the conditional requirement between market_type, event_time, measurement_start, and closing_time, and the impact of omitting them. This goes beyond the individual field descriptions in the schema.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('validate') and resource ('market question') against 'v7.2 rules', and explicitly frames it as a pre-creation check. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like validate_market_params and preview_create_market by focusing on validation rather than parameter checking or previewing.

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 provides clear usage context: 'BEFORE attempting to create it', signaling when to use the tool. It also gives explicit guidance about required timing parameters and warns about the consequence of omission. However, it does not describe alternative tools or when not to use this one, so it lacks explicit exclusion criteria.

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