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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior: duplicate identifiers are deduplicated and the response has a `missing` field reporting absent upstream rows for partial coverage, with an explicit instruction to check it. No mutation to warn about, so this is solid value-add.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then behavioral notes, then sibling routing. No filler; every clause carries actionable information.

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 no explanation. The description covers the batch cap, dedup behavior, partial-coverage/missing handling, and alternatives, giving an agent everything needed to call it 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 the schema already states the required token_ids array with a max of 25. The description restates the limit and the 'distinct' dedup nuance but adds no format, syntax, or sourcing guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Fetch) and resource (public CLOB spread snapshots) with explicit scope (up to 25 distinct Polymarket outcome token_ids). It also names the sibling tools it is not, letting an agent distinguish it without opening a 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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use polymarket_tokens_orderbooks for full bid/ask depth, or polymarket_token_spread for a single token. The selection condition (batch of spreads vs. depth vs. single token) is unambiguous.

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