setup

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the main side effects: creating databases, populating data, and auto-watching. However, it does not mention whether rerunning setup is safe, whether it overwrites existing databases, whether it requires authentication, or what 'auto-watching' implies operationally.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the purpose, the second lists the concrete actions, and the third gives trigger phrases and reassures the agent that no further steps are required. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 purpose, effects, and triggers, which is solid for a setup tool with one optional parameter. However, it lacks important operational context: no mention of possible side effects on existing Notion content, no output/return behavior, and no indication of whether setup is async or long-running. The absence of annotations and output schema makes these gaps more noticeable.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage for the single optional parameter 'market_count', including its default, range, and description. The tool description adds no extra detail about this parameter, but since the schema already documents it well, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 the action ('Set up'), the target ('PolyDesk trading desk in Notion'), and the concrete outcomes: creates databases, populates with live Polymarket data, and starts auto-watching. This makes it distinct from the sibling tools, which perform individual operations rather than full setup.

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?

Explicit trigger phrases are provided ('setup', 'set up', 'create trading desk', 'start'), and the description says no extra steps are needed. It does not list alternative tools or explicitly say when not to use it, but for an all-in-one setup command the trigger conditions are clear enough.

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