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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description's additional disclosure of the Pro key requirement, sorting by absolute edge, and quarter-Kelly sizing adds useful behavioral context. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences front-load the purpose and output, then cover auth and use cases. There is no filler; every clause contributes useful information.

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 simple list-style read tool with two optional, fully documented parameters, the description sufficiently covers return values, ordering, auth requirements, and target use cases. No output schema exists, but the return shape is described clearly enough.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that edges are in percentage points and that results are sorted by absolute edge, but it does not add substantial meaning beyond what the schema already documents for limit and minEdge.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Scan') and resource ('Polymarket contracts'), names the model ('PMP'), and enumerates the output (direction, edge, quarter-Kelly sizing, sorted by absolute edge). It doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings like edge_alerts or base_rate_gap, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives concrete query phrasings ('where is the edge today', 'mispriced markets', 'what should I trade') and a hard prerequisite ('Pro key required'). It does not state when-not-to-use or mention alternative tools, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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