SimpleFunctions

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It successfully conveys critical safety and auth information ('Read-only, no auth'), but does not mention potential rate limits, pagination behavior, or return value structure. Sufficient for operation but lacks 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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first front-loads purpose and safety characteristics; the second provides selection criteria and sibling differentiation. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy or generic 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?

For a single-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and no nested objects, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage context, behavioral constraints (read-only, no auth), and sibling differentiation. Absence of output schema does not detract given the tool's simplicity.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by providing concrete query examples ('OPEC', 'Powell', 'TSMC') in the usage guidelines, helping the agent understand the expected format and type of search terms beyond the schema's technical description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Full-text search') with clear resource ('prediction market contracts') and scope ('by keyword across question text and resolution criteria'). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool get_markets by contrasting free-form keyword search vs. predefined topic filtering.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use when you have a free-form term') with concrete examples ('OPEC', 'Powell', 'TSMC'), and explicitly names the alternative tool ('use get_markets if you only want to filter by predefined topic'). This clearly guides agent selection between search and filter approaches.

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