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 key trait: this is a two-step propose/confirm flow, so nothing executes immediately. It says nothing about permissions, whether the proposal expires, what happens to the shares or collateral on fill, or the failure modes — significant gaps for a trading mutation.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and followed by the required next step — very little waste. The '(redeem collateral)' aside is the one piece that costs clarity rather than adding it.

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?

A six-parameter trading mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions needs far more from the description than a single sentence. An agent would not know what a 'proposal' contains, how long it lives, or which wallet is debited based on this text.

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 0%, so the schema alone leaves all six parameters opaque. The description implies that price and sizeDisplay relate to the sale but adds no meaning for conditionId, outcomeIndex, fromWalletId, or fromAccountQuery — a substantial shortfall against the 0% coverage, though the wording hints at the sale semantics.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Propose selling Polymarket outcome shares.' An agent can distinguish it from propose_polymarket_buy. However, the parenthetical '(redeem collateral)' blurs the line with the sibling tool propose_polymarket_redeem, so the tool's boundary is not fully unambiguous.

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 states the required follow-up step ('then call confirm_proposal'), which is useful workflow guidance. But it never says when to pick this over propose_polymarket_redeem or list_polymarket_positions, and it omits prerequisites such as holding the shares.

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