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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does substantial work: it discloses the enumerated verdict outputs, the returned metrics (edge in bps, probability both legs lose, days to resolution, annualized return, Kelly hedge size capped by top-of-book depth), and the defaults that drive verdict classification. What it omits is whether the tool only analyzes or also executes/places anything, and any note about live-fetch latency or failure modes when a slug cannot be resolved.

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?

It is front-loaded and dense with useful specifics, but it is one long run-on sentence listing verdict codes, and it terminates mid-clause ('Each market can be given a'), which is a visible defect rather than intentional brevity. The truncation leaves a dangling promise of information the agent never receives.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the job of describing return values — verdict actions plus edge, loss probability, days to resolution, annualized return, and Kelly sizing — which is enough for an agent to interpret results. The gaps are the truncated closing sentence and the absence of any statement about side effects or failure behavior, which matter for an unannotated tool.

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 60% and the nested marketA/marketB objects are themselves well documented, so the schema does most of the work. The description adds essentially nothing about parameters and its final sentence ('Each market can be given a') is cut off mid-thought, so any intended clarification of the slug-vs-manual-fields mode is lost.

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 ('finds fine-print divergences between two prediction markets'), prices basis risk after fees, and enumerates the exact verdict actions returned. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as vault-exit-lawyer or market-predictor, and an agent can tell what the tool produces without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the framing — you supply two markets on different platforms to check for arbitrage after fees — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative for adjacent needs like single-market pricing. The reader must infer that this is a two-leg comparison tool rather than a general market lookup.

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