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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description is consistent with these, describing a read-only analysis that walks the order book. It adds behavioral details such as returning a 'verdict (clean|degraded|cannot_fill)' and warns about forced directional risk. 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 long but well-structured: it opens with the core purpose, then flags requirements with REQUIRES, then explains both modes with clear headings, and ends with usage context. Every sentence adds value, though some details could be condensed. It's not overly verbose given the tool's 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?

Given the tool's complexity (single-market and basket modes, multiple return fields, critical for avoiding losses), the description is comprehensive. It explains return values for both modes (e.g., top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, verdict; or theoretical_sum, realizable_sum, capture_ratio, profit_usd, thin_legs, forced_directional_risk). It also addresses risk of partial fills effectively.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds contextual meaning beyond the schema: it explains why each side is used (e.g., 'sell_yes = capture overround by selling every leg, buy_yes = capture underround') and how size_usd is interpreted (max spend vs target proceeds). It integrates parameters into the workflow narrative. However, the schema already provides thorough descriptions, so the added value is moderate.

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 the tool does a 'realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth'. It distinguishes between single-market and basket modes, and explains what it returns in each case. The purpose is specific and differentiates from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges.

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 this 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 it's needed (theoretical overround on thin books is not capturable) and warns about risks (partial basket fills convert arb into directional position). This provides clear context for when and when not to use.

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