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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description does not contradict them. It adds the context of 'limit order', which implies a specific order type, but does not disclose the execution model (e.g., whether the order is filled immediately or persists), return value, or fund locking. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate for adding some but limited value.

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 one sentence with no redundancy, making it very concise. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity; it could include a bit more guidance without becoming verbose. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource.

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?

For a tool with 7 parameters, destructive behavior, and an output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not mention the expected output (e.g., order ID), warn about potential fund usage, or explain the role of critical parameters like token_id and price. The agents operating on financial markets need more context to use this tool safely and effectively.

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 every parameter already has a description in the schema. The tool description adds no extra meaning or context beyond the schema, such as how parameters relate to each other or practical usage tips. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema fully covers parameters.

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 verb 'Place' and resource 'limit order on Polymarket', which matches the name and distinguishes it from sibling tools like cancel_order, history, and open_orders. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other order types (e.g., market orders) or mention that it's specific to limit orders, which is implicit from the schema.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, there is no mention of prerequisites like having sufficient balance or needing a token_id from market search. The description gives no context for choosing between place_order and other trading tools.

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