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

The description goes beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) to explicitly state what the tool does not modify, and it details the output: 'Returns each market... sorted by absolute edge'. It also discloses the key dependency. This is a model that dynamically responds to market conditions (openWorldHint), and the description confirms it's a scan, not a static report.

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 front-loaded with the verb and core purpose. It is concise, but the final sentence listing use cases could be merged more elegantly. Still, it earns its space by clarifying usage intent.

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 two trivial parameters with 100% schema coverage, no nested objects, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description is complete. It explains the model, output, sorting, and usage scenarios. No gaps remain for an agent to select or invoke this tool correctly.

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 the schema already explains both parameters well. The description does not repeat parameter details, but it adds context by describing the output's structure (e.g., 'edge in percentage points', 'quarter-Kelly sizing'), which indirectly clarifies what 'minEdge' filters on. It could be a 5 if it explicitly mapped which parameter controls what, but the description's output characterization is sufficient given the high schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Scan') and a resource ('Polymarket contracts for mispricings'), and clearly states what it does: compares market prices against the PMP model. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on 'mispricings' and 'edge', a concept absent from sibling names like 'find_arbitrage' or 'base_rate_gap'.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: 'Use for "where is the edge today", "mispriced markets", "what should I trade"'. This directly addresses user intents that are distinct from other tools like 'edge_alerts' (which likely monitors over time) or 'find_arbitrage' (which is price discrepancy across markets). It also implies a prerequisite: 'Pro key required'.

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