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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds significant behavioral details: walks the ladder, returns specific fields like slippage_pp, verdict, forced_directional_risk, and notes the dominant loss mode in real arb-bot P&L. 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 dense with information but well-organized into single-market and basket sections. While not perfectly concise, each sentence adds value and the structure improves readability. A slightly tighter edit could improve, but it's 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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains return fields (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, capture_ratio, thin_legs, etc.) and covers edge cases like partial fills, directional risk, and notional limits. This is complete for a risk-check tool.

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%, providing baseline 3. The description adds interpretation details for size_usd (spend vs target proceeds, settlement notional) and side defaults in basket mode, but much of this is already covered in the schema descriptions. Still, the additional context warrants a 4.

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 checks realizable vs theoretical edge against live order-book depth, distinguishes between single-market and basket modes with specific output fields, 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?

Explicitly advises using this tool before acting on polymarket_arbitrage signals or trades above ~$500, explains that partial basket fills convert arb into unhedged directional positions, and provides clear context for when to use versus alternatives.

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