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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: venues are 'queried in parallel,' errors/timeouts are reported as `{ reachable: false }` and 'never fail the call,' divergence is 'only computed when ≥2 venues' top titles share strong token overlap (Jaccard),' and fees are explicitly not netted out. There is no contradiction with 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 long but every sentence carries unique weight: scope, venue list, parallel/error behavior, normalized return shape, honesty caveat, divergence methodology, verification advice, and sibling routing. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and internally structured (e.g., the 'HONESTY:' segment), making it information-dense without wasted words.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: the exact normalized return fields, null probability behavior, divergence conditions, fee-model caveats, error resilience, and a pointer to the executable-arb alternative. For a tool of this complexity, nothing critical is missing.

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 the baseline of 3 applies; the schema already fully documents `topic` with examples and `per_venue` with default/max. The description reinforces the meaning ('for one topic,' 'top matches per venue') but adds no new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides. It earns the baseline but not more.

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 names a specific verb and resource: a 'LANDSCAPE scanner' that 'show[s] how 5 venues... are pricing [a topic] side by side and flag[s] divergence.' It explicitly lists the five venues and distinguishes itself from siblings by calling out that it is 'NOT an executable-arb tool' and pointing to the `polymarket_arbitrage` pack for executable arbitrage. An agent can unambiguously tell this apart from related tools like `polymarket_edges` or `polymarket_kalshi_spread`.

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 gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: use it for cross-venue landscape scanning, but 'for executable poly↔kalshi arbitrage... use the `polymarket_arbitrage` pack.' It also names alternatives for fee modeling ('see the polymarket_edges/polymarket_arbitrage tools') and instructs the user to 'verify the questions resolve identically before trading.' This provides clear routing among sibling tools.

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