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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Auth required,' which is useful, but it doesn't describe what happens on submission (e.g., on-chain effect), failure modes, or idempotency. This is minimally transparent for a mutating action.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action and key dependency in a concise manner.

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?

While the tool is simple (2 params, no output schema), the description gives only the core purpose and auth requirement. It doesn't address potential edge cases, expected return values, or post-conditions, which could matter for an AI agent deciding whether to call it. It's adequate but minimal.

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% for both parameters with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no new parameter information beyond restating the source of prepare_id. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameters.

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 ('Submit') and the resource ('a prepared Polymarket order with the maker's EIP-712 signature'), and it explicitly references the originating tool (prepare_pm_order), distinguishing it from siblings like create_pm_order or prepare_pm_order.

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?

It implies the tool should be used after prepare_pm_order by naming that tool in the description. It also notes 'Auth required,' which provides usage context. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to avoid using it or name alternative tools, so it misses full exclusion criteria.

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