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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true) already convey safety. The description adds depth: checks live CLOB depth, returns verdicts like clean/degraded/cannot_fill, explains risk of partial fills converting arb to directional position, and details return fields. 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?

Description is long but well-structured: first sentence captures core purpose, then breaks into modes, then usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, but some repetition (e.g., explaining parameters in both description and schema) could be trimmed. Nonetheless, it's informative and efficient 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?

No output schema, so description must compensate. It lists return fields (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, etc. for single-market; theoretical_sum, realizable_sum, etc. for basket), explains both modes thoroughly, and even warns about partial fill risks. Complete for a complex 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema: clarifies size_usd as 'max spend on buys, target proceeds on sells' for single-market and 'settlement notional' for basket, explains default side for basket mode as 'auto from partition sum', and describes side enum behavior. Adds significant context.

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's purpose: 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth.' It distinguishes between single-market and basket modes, and the verb 'check' plus resource 'edge' is specific. Differentiates from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by focusing on fill risk verification.

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 states when to use: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' Provides reasoning (theoretical overround not capturable, partial fills cause directional risk) and excludes alternatives implicitly by naming them.

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