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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds behavioral context by explaining edge_pt calculation and specifying that it is null for untraded/synthetic prices, which is valuable. It also outlines the dispatch logic and return structure, supplementing the annotations without contradicting them.

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 a single, dense paragraph that front-loads purpose, then covers inputs, dispatch logic, and output structure in three sentences. Every sentence adds value—no redundant words or filler. It effectively communicates the core functionality without bloat.

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 the tool has 9 parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential output details (returned fields, edge formula, null handling) and explains dispatch. It doesn't enumerate all parameters (covered by schema) or elaborate on all edge cases, but it is complete enough for a read-only tool with high schema coverage and annotations. Slight shortfall in not mentioning vol_24h requirement for edge/verdict in the description, though it's in the schema.

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% with each parameter already described. The description reiterates some parameter groups ('strike/comparator/expiry/underlying for price markets, yes_price') but adds no additional semantics beyond the schema. It does not explain edge computation inputs beyond the formula, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate 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?

Description clearly states it is a 'Universal fair-value anchor for ONE market of ANY category', specifying it computes an edge between an anchor and hip4_yes. It distinguishes from siblings like get_market_edges (plural) by emphasizing 'ONE market'. The dispatch to different anchor types (options/vol, Polymarket twin, news lean) further clarifies scope.

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 single-market usage via 'ONE market' and explains the required inputs ('Pass the question + optional...'). It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like get_market_edges or get_outcome_fair_value, but the focus on a single market and universal category provides clear context. The absence of exclusions or when-not-to-use is a minor gap.

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