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

Annotations declare destructive/idempotent/openWorld, and the description adds real value beyond them: the collateral effect of cancelling (hold returned vs. position left untouched), idempotent behavior on already-filled/closed orders (reduced_by=0), and the venue-specific refusal behavior for live/poly_intl. This is the kind of preconditions and side-effect detail an agent needs to avoid a failed call.

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?

Front-loads the core action and then adds effect, edge case, and constraints in short sentences with no filler. Slightly telegraphic fragments ('confirm=true') but every sentence earns its place.

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 mutation tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies exactly the missing behavioral context: side effects on holds/positions, idempotency edge case, and the paper-only venue restriction. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is absent.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3; the description goes further by spelling out the failure mode for live (Kalshi) and poly_intl (Polymarket International) rather than just their destinations, and reiterates the confirm=true requirement. The added meaning around venue flags and the refusal semantics exceeds what the schema fields alone convey.

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?

'Withdraw a resting limit' states a specific verb and resource, and the following sentences describe the exact effect for buys (hold returned) and sells (position unchanged), so an agent understands the operation without ambiguity. It is clearly distinct from the ordering siblings like place_trade and sell_trade.

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?

Gives concrete usage constraints: confirm must be true, and live/poly_intl calls are refused on this paper-only server (live_not_hosted). It doesn't explicitly name place_trade/sell_trade as the inverse to reach for, but the conditions that gate correct invocation are all present.

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