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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, which aligns with reading order book depth. The description adds behavioral context: it walks the ladder, returns verdict (clean/degraded/cannot_fill), and warns about thin books and forced directional risk. No contradiction with annotations; adds value beyond 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 well-structured with sections for single-market and basket modes, using bold headers. It is somewhat lengthy but every sentence adds necessary detail. Slight verbosity in explaining edge cases, but overall efficient for the complexity.

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 complexity of two modes and no output schema, the description comprehensively covers return fields, edge cases (thin legs, partial fills), and risk warnings. It lacks only some minor details like exact pagination but is sufficiently complete for an AI agent to understand behavior and usage.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant semantics: explains default side logic in basket mode (auto from partition sum), size interpretation (max spend vs target proceeds in single-market, settlement notional in basket), and required parameter relationship (one of market or event). This goes beyond schema but could be more concise.

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: checking realizable-vs-theoretical edge against live CLOB order-book depth. It explicitly distinguishes single-market and basket modes, lists return fields, and differentiates from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges.

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: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500'. It explains when not to use (partial fills convert arb into unhedged directional position) and alternatives are implied via sibling tool context.

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