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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: it declares read-only behavior ('places no order'), describes the mechanics (resolves market and token, walks the live order book), discloses pricing ($0.005 USDC per call), and warns about the US/regional block. That is a materially richer profile than a bare 'quote' label would provide.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose and most important constraint, and every sentence adds usable information (what it returns, safety, identifiers, cost, legal restriction). The long first sentence with stacked parentheticals is dense but not wasteful.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain returns, and it does: fill size, average/worst price, slippage vs best and mid, fee and total cost. Combined with identifier formats, cost per call, and the region restriction, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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% and each of the six parameters already has its own description, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the identifier forms (slug, Gamma id, URL, polymarket:<id>) already in the schema and doesn't add detail on tick-size handling for limitPrice or the buy/sell amount pairing.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Quote a Polymarket order before you place it') and immediately enumerates what the quote contains: shares, average and worst price, slippage, platform fee and total cost. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like prediction_market_odds (informational odds) and swap_quote (DEX quoting).

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?

Gives a clear when: before placing an order, to preview fill and cost. It also names the accepted identifier forms, including cross-referencing a 'prediction_market_arbitrage id (polymarket:<id>)', which helps an agent chain tools. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative or when-not-to-use condition beyond the region restriction.

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