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

Annotations already mark it readOnly and non-destructive; the description adds critical behavioral disclosure beyond that: it walks the order-book ladder, can partially fill (shares_filled, max_fillable_usd), and exposes risk flags like thin_legs and forced_directional_risk. It honestly warns about the dominant loss mode in arb-bot P&L, which is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey. No contradiction.

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 lengthy but tightly organized: summary line, REQUIRES clause, SINGLE-MARKET block, BASKET block, and a bolded USE THIS directive. Every sentence carries either a configuration detail, a return value, or a risk warning. The caps-lock emphasis and block structure make it skimmable despite its density.

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 two modes, four parameters, and absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It enumerates output fields for both modes, explains the economic rationale, gives defaults and clamps, and includes failure/risk semantics. Without an output schema, this description shoulders the burden exceptionally well.

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?

Though schema coverage is 100%, the description goes much deeper: it clarifies the market vs event mode dichotomy, gives side values per mode with defaults, explains size_usd interpretation (max spend vs target proceeds vs settlement notional), and notes the clamp range. It also reveals an important constraint invisible in the schema (required: one of market or event). This substantially enriches parameter understanding.

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 opens with a precise verb-resource pair: "Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth." It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly naming polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges and positioning itself as the pre-trade fill-risk validator for those signals.

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 states exactly when to use: "USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500." It also explains the consequence of not using it (partial fills → unhedged directional position) and gives mode-level instructions (REQUIRES one of market/event).

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