find_markets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the cross-venue aggregation behavior and, importantly, that market_id is 'the id that venue's place_order takes' — a contract detail that directly affects downstream tool selection. It doesn't discuss rate limits or edge cases, but the annotated safety profile lowers the burden.

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 dense sentences, each earning its place: the first front-loads the core action and return contract, the second delivers the routing rule. The inline field enumeration is lengthy but justified given there is no output schema. Slightly more compact phrasing was possible, but nothing is redundant.

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?

For a read-only search tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description compensates well by enumerating the return fields and the place_order id contract. However, the total absence of parameter semantics (query, limit, venues) and no mention of pagination or result-limiting behavior leave meaningful gaps for an agent attempting correct invocation.

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 carries the full burden of explaining query, limit, and venues — but it never names or explains any of them. The 'BOTH Polymarket and Kalshi' phrasing hints at the venues parameter's purpose and the default suggests valid values, but there is no specification of query syntax, limit behavior, or venues value options. The description does not compensate for the absent schema 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Search BOTH Polymarket and Kalshi at once', which immediately distinguishes it from per-venue siblings like kalshi_search_markets and search_markets. It further strengthens clarity by enumerating the full normalized return shape, so an agent knows exactly what it receives.

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 final sentence gives an explicit routing rule: 'Use this instead of the per-venue search tools when you do not already know the venue.' This names the alternative tool class and the exact deciding condition, and by implication states when not to use it (when the venue is known). No inference is required.

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