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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds rich behavioral detail: walks the ladder, returns top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, shares_filled, max_fillable_usd, verdict; per-leg fill details, thin_legs, forced_directional_risk in basket mode. Warns about partial basket fills converting arb into directional positions.

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 relatively long but well-structured: starts with purpose, then requirements, then explains both modes in detail, ending with usage guidance. Each sentence adds value and the front-loading is effective. A slight trim could improve conciseness, but it is appropriate for the 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 (two modes, 4 parameters, no output schema), the description is fully self-contained. It explains inputs, outputs (lists return fields for both modes), behavioral nuances, and warnings. No gaps remain for an agent to misinterpret.

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. Description adds value beyond schema: explains default for side in basket mode (auto based on partition sum), distinguishes size_usd interpretation between single-market (spend/target) and basket (settlement notional), and mentions clamping range. However, schema already covers basics well.

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's a 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth' and distinguishes between single-market and basket modes. It ties directly to sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges, making its purpose and differentiation explicit.

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 instructs 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500' and explains why (theoretical overround not capturable, partial fills create directional risk). Provides 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.