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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral fact: the score is computed over only the latest 200 finished bets and includes losses, so an agent knows the score is a bounded sample rather than lifetime performance.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its metric payload, followed by the sampling caveat. The colon list is dense but each metric earns its place; nothing is padding.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description supplies the one thing structured fields can't — the 200-bet/losses-included methodology. It is essentially complete for a single-arg read tool, with sibling routing left out.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema coverage (pattern plus 'Polymarket proxy wallet address' description), so the schema carries the load. The description's 'for any wallet' adds no format or constraint detail beyond it — baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('scorecard for any wallet') and enumerates exactly what the scorecard contains — skill score, edge, win rate vs implied, ROI, realized PnL, specialty, largest open positions. That makes it easy to tell apart from list_top_traders and get_skilled_whale_trades, though it never names a sibling to route against.

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?

No statement of when to use this over list_top_traders, get_skilled_whale_trades, or get_whale_trades, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The only scoping note ('latest 200 finished bets') describes method, not selection criteria.

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