search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool performs 'full-text search' but doesn't describe key behaviors such as search result format, pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it operates.

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 two sentences that are front-loaded and efficient: the first states the tool's purpose and scope, and the second provides usage intent. There is no wasted text, making it appropriately concise and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

Given the tool's complexity as a search function with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., result format, limitations) and doesn't compensate for the absence of structured data. For a tool that likely returns varied search results, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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%, with the single parameter 'query' documented as 'Search query (e.g. 'election', 'bitcoin', 'AI')' in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, such as query syntax or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding.

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 tool performs 'full-text search across Polymarket events, markets, and profiles' with the specific purpose to 'find markets on any topic.' This provides a clear verb ('search') and resource scope ('events, markets, and profiles'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_markets' or 'get_events' that might retrieve specific items rather than search broadly.

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 implies usage by stating 'Use this to find markets on any topic,' which suggests it's for general discovery, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over sibling tools like 'get_markets' (which might list all markets) or 'get_events' (which might list all events). No alternatives or exclusions are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat vague.

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