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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it walks the order book ladder, returns fill quality metrics, and warns about incomplete fills and directional risk. However, the description could be more concise in listing return fields.

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 with labeled sections (REQUIRES, SINGLE-MARKET, BASKET). Every sentence adds value, though some repetition could be trimmed (e.g., repeating return fields in both modes). It is front-loaded with the core requirement (market or event) and then expands.

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, multiple return fields, usage advice) and the absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It details all return fields for both modes, explains the meaning of verdict, thin_legs, and forced_directional_risk, and provides real-world context about losses. No gaps identified.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema: it explains the dual mode (market vs event), default side logic, and how size_usd is interpreted differently for buys vs sells and basket vs single-market. This extra context helps the agent understand parameter behavior 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 identifies the tool as a risk check for Polymarket fills, distinguishing between single-market and basket modes. It specifies exactly what returns are provided (e.g., top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, verdict) and contrasts with sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges, which it advises using before acting on their signals.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500'. It also explains why (theoretical overround not capturable, partial fills convert arb to directional position). This provides clear guidance on alternatives and prerequisites.

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