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

The description goes far beyond annotations. It explains that the tool walks the ladder, returns specific fields like top_of_book, vwap_fill_price, slippage_pp, and a verdict. For baskets, it details return fields and warns about forced_directional_risk. It also explains the risk of partial fills converting arb into unhedged positions, which is critical behavioral context. 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 lengthy, but well-structured with clear sections for single-market and basket modes, and uses bold headings. Every sentence provides necessary detail. Could be slightly more concise, but the high information density justifies 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?

Given the complexity (two modes, multiple return fields, risk considerations) and the lack of an output schema, the description is extremely complete. It lists all return fields for both modes, explains the verdict, default sizes and clamps, auto side detection, and warnings about directional risk. No gaps.

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 meaning: it explains the interpretation of size_usd in both modes (spend vs. target proceeds for single-market, settlement notional per leg for basket), the auto default for side in basket mode, and the requirement that one of market or event must be provided. This adds context beyond the schema definitions.

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.' It distinguishes between single-market and basket modes and explicitly says to use this before polymarket_arbitrage or polymarket_edges trades, differentiating it from siblings.

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.' It explains why: theoretical overround is not capturable on thin books, and partial fills create directional risk. It provides clear when-to-use guidance and warns against not using it for larger trades.

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