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

Annotations indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds behavioral details: 'walks the ladder', returns specific fields (top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, etc.), and explains that partial basket fills can create unhedged directional risk. 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 long (approx. 280 words) but densely packed with essential information. It front-loads the core purpose and then systematically covers modes, parameters, and return fields. While verbose, every sentence adds value and the structure is logical. A slight trim could improve conciseness.

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, four parameters, significant risk warnings), the description is exceptionally complete. It explains return fields for both modes, warns about thin books and partial fills, and lists specific output fields including 'forced_directional_risk'. Without an output schema, this fully compensates.

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% but the description adds significant context: clarifies that 'event' and 'market' are mutually required, explains the default side logic for basket mode (auto from partition sum), and interprets size_usd differently for single-market vs basket ('spend on buys, target proceeds on sells' vs 'settlement notional'). This goes well beyond schema descriptions.

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 performs a 'realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth' and explicitly distinguishes two modes (single-market and basket). It differentiates from sibling tools like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges by advising to use this tool before acting on their outputs.

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 explicitly says 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500', providing clear context for when to use. It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the strong positive guidance implies thresholds. It also warns about partial fill risks.

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