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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations, the description details exactly how the tool behaves: it 'walks the ladder', provides a verdict (clean|degraded|cannot_fill), identifies 'thin_legs[]' and 'forced_directional_risk', and warns about partial-fill conversions into unhedged positions. This is rich behavioral disclosure that goes far beyond annotation hints.

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 densely informative. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then structured into SINGLE-MARKET and BASKET sections with clear parameter semantics, return values, and usage guidance. Every sentence contributes value, and the structure aids scannability despite the length.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description must explain return values; it does so in detail for both modes, including theoretical vs realizable sums, capture_ratio, profit_usd, per-leg fill details, and risk warnings. It also covers parameter defaults, modes, and explicit usage context, making the description fully adequate for the tool's complexity.

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?

Even though the schema already describes all four parameters with 100% coverage, the description adds crucial semantics: it distinguishes single-market vs basket modes, explains side defaults and their different meanings (sell_yes = capture overround, buy_yes = capture underround), and clarifies size_usd as 'max spend on buys, target proceeds on sells' versus 'settlement notional S' in basket mode. This is substantially more than the schema provides.

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 performs a 'Realizable-vs-theoretical edge check against live CLOB order-book depth.' This specific verb–resource combination distinguishes it from siblings like polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges, which focus on finding edges rather than verifying fill risk.

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 is provided: 'USE THIS before acting on any polymarket_arbitrage SELL/BUY-EVERY-LEG signal or any polymarket_edges trade above ~$500.' It also explains why, citing thin-book overround and partial-fill risk, making the when-to-use cotext clear and actionable.

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