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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: it walks the order book ladder, returns a 'verdict' (clean/degraded/cannot_fill), and explains that thin books may strand the user unhedged. No contradictions 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?

Despite being long, every sentence is justified. Information is front-loaded with purpose, then broken into clear sections (SINGLE-MARKET, BASKET). The usage warning is prominently placed. No unnecessary words; the length is appropriate 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?

No output schema, but the description enumerates all return fields for both modes: for single-market (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, shares_filled, max_fillable_usd, verdict) and basket (theoretical_sum, realizable_sum, capture_ratio, profit_usd, per-leg fill detail, thin_legs, max_clean_notional_usd, forced_directional_risk). This makes the tool's behavior fully predictable.

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% but description adds significant meaning: it clarifies side default behavior per mode (auto for basket), interprets size_usd as 'spend on buys' vs 'target proceeds on sells' in single-market, and 'settlement notional' in basket. The explanation of default values and clamping range is additional value beyond the schema.

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?

Description opens with a clear verb+resource: 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth.' It then splits into two distinct modes (single-market and basket), each with detailed purpose, and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by stating when to use it before other Polymarket tools.

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 states 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500'. It also explains the risk of partial basket fills converting an arb into an unhedged directional position, providing clear when-not conditions.

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