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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds valuable context: it resolves markets to different anchor types, includes a slower 'news' method, and returns by_method counts. However, it doesn't detail the exact structure of the response or the underlying algorithm, but given the annotations, this is sufficient.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear verb and resource at the beginning. It packs essential information about capabilities, filtering, and relationship to sibling tools in just two sentences, making it easy to scan and understand.

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's complexity (handles all market types, multiple anchor methods) and the lack of an output schema, the description provides a good overview. It mentions the output includes by_method counts and ranked markets, which helps set expectations. However, it could detail the ranking criteria or the edge calculation more, but it's adequate for an experienced agent.

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%, so all three parameters are well-documented in the schema itself. The description mentions 'Filter with method / min_edge_pt / limit' which reinforces the parameter usage, but adds little beyond what the schema already states. The behavior of the 'news' method being slower is a useful addition, but the overall added value is minimal.

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: a universal mispricing scanner across all market types, with the capability to filter and rank by edge. It explicitly distinguishes itself from a sibling by stating it is a superset of get_outcome_edges, which helps differentiate it from similar tools.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: it mentions filtering by method, min_edge_pt, and limit. It also implies when to use this tool over others, as it covers all market types and is a superset of get_outcome_edges. Although it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it, the broad scope makes it clear it's the go-to for general mispricing scans.

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