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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing the route and $0.01 cost, but it does not describe the response shape, pagination, or practical limits of the scan.

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 extremely compact and front-loads the key arbitrage condition. The endpoint and price fragments are terse but purposeful, though the notation is slightly cryptic.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries more burden for explaining what is returned. It states the selection condition but not the return format, and it leaves payment flow details to the schema. It is minimally adequate for a paid Polymarket scan tool but not complete.

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 both the limit and payment parameters are already documented in the schema. The description only repeats the 'limit=' query shape and price, adding no meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 precise arbitrage condition: markets where YES_ask + NO_ask < $1.00. That condition distinguishes it from sibling Polymarket odds/book/history tools, though it does not use an explicit verb like 'find' or name the resource as Polymarket arbitrage markets.

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 arbitrage condition implies when the tool is useful, and the endpoint plus cost give some operational context. However, it does not say when to prefer this over get_polymarket_odds or get_polymarket_book, nor does it give any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the schema's payment description.

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