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

Since there are no annotations, the description is responsible for context. It successfully informs the agent about the return structure (long and short opportunities, confidence scores), which is valuable behavioral information. However, it lacks technical context like execution time or potential error modes.

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 highly dense and efficient. Both sentences front-load key information: the first defines the action and scope, and the second defines the successful output format, providing maximum value in minimal space.

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?

Despite the clear high-level description, the tool's functional completeness is low. Given the complexity of an arbitrage scanner, the failure to describe the function of the three mandatory parameters is a significant gap that could lead to incorrect tool invocation or unusable outputs.

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?

The schema coverage is 0%, yet the description fails entirely to elaborate on the three input parameters (limit, min_edge, min_liquidity). It adds no meaning, definition, or context to the critical input fields required for the tool to function.

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 is extremely precise, defining the resource (Polymarket), the specific type of operation (single-market rebalance arbitrage), and the exact conditions it targets (YES+NO pricing violations where guaranteed profit exists). It is easily distinguishable from other market scan 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?

It establishes a clear operational context by stating exactly what kind of arbitrage it seeks (rebalance/guaranteed profit). While it doesn't explicitly name negative use cases, the high specificity acts as a strong guide for when to invoke it.

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