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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses meaningful behavioral details: no signing, no submission, no CLOB credentials, no collateral touching, 300-second envelope validity, replay-boundary semantics, and no single-execution guarantee. This substantially helps the agent set expectations and avoid misuse.

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 long but information-dense and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence carries essential operational or safety context; minor verbosity around 'stamped' and 're-asserted' keeps it from being maximally concise.

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 nested objects, an output schema, and complex exchange-specific constraints, the description covers what the tool returns, what it never does, freshness requirements, validation rules, and replay boundaries. An agent has enough context to call it safely and 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?

With only 50% schema description coverage, the prose adds important parameter-level semantics: price must be an exact multiple of the live minimum tick size, size must meet the published minimum, and token IDs are outcome-specific. It does not fully elaborate on client_ref or accountProfile, but the schema already documents several parameters and the added constraints are high-value.

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 names a highly specific verb-resource pair: prepare and verify an unsigned Polymarket CTF Exchange V2 limit order. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like otto_prepare_swap, otto_prepare_perp_order, and otto_prepare_bridge by naming the exact exchange and order type.

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?

It clearly conveys the context: this only prepares and verifies order data, never signs or submits, and requires a fresh envelope within 300 seconds. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the specialized domain and non-goals give an agent enough context to route correctly.

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