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

Annotations already declare readOnly and non-destructive behavior; the description adds substantial depth by detailing what the tool computes (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, shares_filled, verdict, etc.), what triggers degraded vs cannot_fill, and the forced_directional_risk naming. It clearly indicates this is an analytical check, not an execution tool, and describes edge-case behavior without contradicting 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 long but every sentence earns its place. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then uses clear uppercase labels (REQUIRES, SINGLE-MARKET, BASKET, USE THIS) to structure complex multimodal behavior. No fluff or redundancy; it remains efficient 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 complexity (two modes, 4 parameters, no output schema), the description is exhaustively complete. It covers both modes in detail, lists all return fields, explains interpretation of verdicts and risk factors, and situates the tool within the broader trading workflow. No critical aspect is left ambiguous.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description enriches every parameter's meaning. It explains the market vs event mode distinction, default side behavior in basket mode, and the nuanced interpretation of size_usd (max spend for buys, target proceeds for sells; settlement notional for baskets). It also notes the clamp range and the meaning of output fields, adding significant value beyond the raw 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?

The description opens with a precise, specific verb+resource ('Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth') and clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by explicitly stating it should be used before polymarket_arbitrage or polymarket_edges trades. It enumerates both single-market and basket modes with distinct outputs, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500'. It also explains the rationale (thin books not capturable) and the risk of partial fills, effectively covering alternatives and exclusions.

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