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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which the description aligns with (it's a risk-check tool). The description goes well beyond annotations by detailing what the tool returns (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, verdict, capture_ratio, thin_legs, forced_directional_risk) and behavioral nuances like partial fills leading to unhedged positions. No contradictions.

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 dense but well-structured: it leads with the core purpose and requirements, then separates SINGLE-MARKET and BASKET modes, and ends with explicit usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, though the length is substantial. A slight reduction or bullet-point formatting could improve scannability, but no information is wasted.

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?

This is a high-complexity tool with two modes, no output schema, and only four parameters. The description enumerates all key return fields for both modes, names the risk of partial fills, identifies `thin_legs` and `forced_directional_risk`, and gives concrete threshold guidance ($500). It fully compensates for the lack of an output schema and leaves no major gaps.

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?

While schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial semantic depth beyond the property descriptions. For instance, it clarifies `size_usd` as 'max spend on buys, target proceeds on sells' in single-market mode, and 'settlement notional — shares per leg' in basket mode. It also explains the default behavior for `side` in basket mode (auto from partition sum). This significantly 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 specific noun phrase, 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth,' and immediately clarifies the tool's core function: verifying whether theoretical edges are actually capturable given market depth. It clearly distinguishes single-market and basket modes, and its relationship to sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges is explicit.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' It explains when single-market vs basket modes are appropriate, and warns of the danger of partial basket fills converting into unhedged positions. This fully addresses when to use the tool versus alternatives.

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