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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered, but the description adds nothing beyond them. It says nothing about what an order book response contains (bid/ask levels, depth, snapshot vs. streaming), so it contributes no behavioral context of its own.

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?

It is short, but the brevity comes from under-specification rather than economy — the phrase duplicates the tool name and front-loads no actionable information. Nothing in it helps an agent decide or invoke correctly.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but with a required token id and a near-identical sibling (polymarket_tokens_orderbooks), the description should at least disambiguate single vs. batch retrieval and note what the order book represents. It leaves both gaps open.

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% and the single token_id parameter is documented in the schema as 'Polymarket CLOB token id.' The word 'token' in the description aligns with the parameter but adds no format, source (where to obtain a token id), or constraint beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the work.

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 is a bare noun phrase that restates the tool name ('polymarket_token_orderbook' → 'Polymarket token order book') with no verb and no distinct scope. It does not distinguish this single-token lookup from the closely-named sibling polymarket_tokens_orderbooks (plural, batch) or from kalshi_market_orderbook.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the plural batch variant as an alternative. An agent has to infer everything from the name alone.

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