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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the tool is clearly a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral context about partial fills converting arb to unhedged directional position (the dominant loss mode), which is valuable beyond the 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 well-structured with clear headings and front-loaded purpose. While verbose, every sentence adds value (mode explanations, output details, risk warnings). Some redundancy could be trimmed, but it remains organized and informative.

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 comprehensively lists all return fields (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, etc.) and per-leg details. It also explains risks (partial fills, thin legs, forced directional risk), making the tool fully self-contained for an AI agent.

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 parameters are already documented. The description adds semantic meaning by explaining default values (e.g., size_usd default 1000), interpretation differences for buys vs sells, and basket mode's settlement notional interpretation. This goes 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?

The description clearly states the tool checks realizable vs theoretical edge against CLOB order book depth, distinguishes between single-market and basket modes, and specifies when to use it (before arbitrage signals or trades above $500). This differentiates it from siblings 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?

Explicit usage guidance: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' It also warns against relying on theoretical overround on thin books, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use context.

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