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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive; the description adds substantial behavioral detail: it walks the order-book ladder, returns specific fields (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, shares_filled, max_fillable_usd, verdict), and describes mode-specific semantics for size_usd. It also warns about thin books and forced directional risk, which goes beyond annotation metadata.

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 long but densely structured with mode-based sections and a direct usage directive. It front-loads the purpose and walks through both single-market and basket modes without filler, though its length and uppercase emphasis are somewhat heavy-handed.

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 no output schema, the description enumerates the principal return values for both modes, explains the two usage modes, and contextualizes when the tool is necessary. Minor undefined thresholds (e.g., '~$500') and overlap behavior (when both market and event are passed) are gaps, but overall it's highly complete for a tool of this complexity.

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% and each parameter already has a descriptive entry. The description adds the conditional requirement ('REQUIRES one of market or event'), clarifies side defaults in each mode, and explains how size_usd is interpreted differently (max spend vs target proceeds vs settlement notional). This elevates it beyond the baseline schema detail.

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 specific verb and scope: 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by focusing on fill execution risk rather than edge discovery.

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 explicitly states when to use it: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' It also names the alternative tools and explains the failure mode (partial fills converting arb into directional risk), making usage context unmistakable.

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