Markets waiting for resolution

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only the scoping phrase 'canonical resolution pipeline' and mentions cursor/limit implicitly, but says nothing about default page size behavior or result ordering beyond what the schema states. With annotations carrying the behavioral load, a 3 is appropriate.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose before the parameter list. Nothing is wasted, though the parameter enumeration is arguably redundant given the 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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and pagination is schema-documented. Still, for a filtered list tool sitting among many similar list/state endpoints, the description omits which resolution states belong to the 'pipeline' and how it differs from problee_list_markets, leaving a real selection gap.

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 100%: enums (category, marketState), the cursor's opaque semantics, and the 1–100 default-50 limit are all documented in the schema. The description merely echoes the parameter names ('optional category, marketState, cursor, and limit') without adding meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('List markets') scoped to 'the canonical resolution pipeline', which separates it from the generic problee_list_markets to a degree. However, it never names the sibling it is not, and 'pending resolution' in the tool name versus 'canonical resolution pipeline' in the description leaves ambiguity about whether resolved/void markets are included.

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 only enumerates available filters; it gives no when-to-use guidance and never contrasts this tool with the very similar problee_list_markets or problee_get_market_resolution_state siblings. An agent must guess which listing endpoint fits the task.

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