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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: venue-side rounding can vary, it does not assert cross-venue contract equivalence, the budget includes the fee estimate, and it returns specific output fields. These go beyond basic descriptions and inform the agent of limitations and estimation behavior.

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 dense but organized, with parameter explanations followed by an output list and a limitation note. Each sentence adds value, though the multiple clauses make it slightly long. It is appropriately sized for the information conveyed.

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?

The description covers purpose, parameters, outputs, and limitations efficiently. It specifies it is a BUY quote, lists all return fields, and notes fee and rounding behavior. Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, this is reasonably complete. It could mention edge cases like insufficient liquidity, but that's not critical.

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%, but the description explains all parameters: 'platform is polymarket or kalshi', 'market_id is the Polymarket market id or Kalshi ticker returned by search', 'side is the outcome to buy'. Amount_usd is implied via 'all-in cash-sized' and 'budget includes the fee estimate'. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: 'Walk the current public order book for an all-in cash-sized BUY quote on one exact contract.' This specifies the verb (walk/quote), resource (order book), and scope (one exact contract), distinguishing it from sibling tools like compare_executable_quotes which compare multiple quotes. The output list further clarifies its role.

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 implies when to use this tool—for a single contract quote—but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. Phrases like 'one exact contract' hint at differentiation from compare tools, but there is no direct guidance to use compare_executable_quotes for multi-contract comparisons. This is implied usage, not explicit.

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