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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, etc. The description adds detailed behavioral context: walks the ladder, returns specific fields like top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, shares_filled, verdict, and for basket mode explains forced_directional_risk and thin_legs. No contradiction with annotations.

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 fairly long but well-structured: starts with purpose, then explains modes, defaults, return values, and usage warning. Every sentence adds value; minor conciseness improvement possible but front-loading is effective.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description thoroughly explains return fields for both modes (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, etc. for single-market; theoretical_sum, realizable_sum, capture_ratio, profit_usd, per-leg fill, thin_legs, max_clean_notional, forced_directional_risk for basket). Covers the complex risk scenario comprehensively.

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%, but the description adds significant meaning: size_usd interpretation varies by mode (max spend on buys vs target proceeds for single-market, settlement notional for basket), side defaults to buy_yes in single-market and auto in basket, and market/event are mutually exclusive. This goes well beyond the schema descriptions.

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 it performs a 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth' with two modes (single-market and basket). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by positioning itself as a prerequisite risk check.

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?

Explicitly says 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500'. It explains why (theoretical overround on thin books is not capturable, partial fills convert arb to unhedged position) and provides context on required inputs (market or event).

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