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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is largely covered. The description adds useful context about what is scanned (Polymarket markets for velocity and orderbook imbalance), but it does not disclose return shape, cadence, or whether results are a snapshot versus a streamed feed.

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, front-loaded sentence that packs the read-only nature, target domain, and detection thresholds without any filler. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool's scope.

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?

For a complex, open-world telemetry scan with no output schema, the description gives the core detection logic but leaves important gaps: what the result set looks like, how many markets are covered, and whether the tool returns current snapshots or historical observations. More behavioral detail is needed for an agent to invoke it confidently.

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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'min_velocity_pct' parameter. It partially does by tying the scan to a '>2% in 5 min' threshold, which clarifies the parameter's role and default window, but it does not explicitly state the parameter's units or confirm that the 2% default maps to 'min_velocity_pct'.

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 states a specific action ('scanning Polymarket prediction markets') and the signals it detects ('probability velocity >2% in 5 min and orderbook imbalances'), which is far more specific than the name alone. It implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like pulse_arb_routes or pulse_base_liquidity by focusing on velocity/imbalance telemetry rather than routing or liquidity depth.

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 stated scan criteria (velocity spikes and orderbook imbalances), so an agent can infer this tool is for detecting fast market movement. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools such as pulse_arb_routes, nor any stated exclusions or prerequisites.

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