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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it only names the data type. It does not state that this is a read operation, what the returned depth looks like (order-book levels, bid/ask sizes, total liquidity), or any prerequisites or limits. 'Market depth' implies a read but never explicitly says so.

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 extremely compact and front-loaded, but 'Poly Depth:' is redundant with the tool name and wastes half of the text. The remaining 'Polymarket market depth' is a fragment rather than a self-contained sentence, so what little length exists is not fully earning its place.

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 one-parameter read tool the bar is low, but nothing tells the agent what value to pass for 'token' or what the response will look like, and there is no output schema or annotation to fill the gap. Given the large cluster of Polymarket and depth-related siblings, the missing differentiation leaves the definition materially incomplete.

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%, which sets the baseline at 3, and the description adds little beyond it. The schema's 'Token to process' is itself ambiguous — it doesn't clarify whether token is a clobTokenId, condition ID, market slug, or ERC-1155 ID — and 'Polymarket market depth' only weakly ties the parameter to a market context without specifying its expected format.

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 the resource (Polymarket) and the data type (market depth), which loosely distinguishes it from dex-depth, but it never states an action verb — an agent cannot tell whether the tool fetches, computes, or aggregates the depth. The 'Poly Depth:' prefix merely restates the tool name, and with a null title the description carries the full naming burden. It rises above pure tautology because 'Polymarket' adds domain context, but the purpose is vague.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus the dozens of Polymarket-related siblings (poly-clob, poly-price, polymarket-odds, poly-volume, poly-walls) or the similarly named dex-depth. No conditions, exclusions, or alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the agent to guess which of many overlapping depth/Polymarket tools is appropriate.

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