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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden; it explains what data it returns and the whole-board vs single-market behavior, which is useful. But it doesn't explicitly state read-only/no-side-effect status, any auth or rate-limit considerations, or behavior for unknown symbols/empty results, so disclosure is partial.

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 dense sentences that front-load the purpose and metric list, then add the board-vs-single behavior. No filler; every clause earns 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?

The description is complete for basic use (whole board or single symbol), but the 5-parameter schema includes four parameters (`id`, `limit`, `category`, `instrument`) that are left semantically empty, and there is no output schema or annotation to fill the gap. For a tool with this many optional knobs, more parameter context would be needed.

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 descriptions are generic ('Symbol to process', 'Limit to process'), and the tool description only enriches the `symbol` parameter. `id`, `limit`, `category`, and `instrument` semantics remain unexplained, so the description adds partial value but leaves gaps despite high schema coverage.

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 states a specific action ('Live quotes') and resource ('Polymarket Perps markets') and enumerates the returned metrics, so an agent can tell this is a perps quoting tool. However, it never contrasts itself with sibling tools like polyperp-book or polyperp-funding, so differentiation is inferred from the tool name rather than stated.

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 gives clear parameter-level guidance: omit symbol for the whole board, pass a symbol for a single market. But it does not explain when to choose this tool over nearby alternatives (polyperp-book, polyperp-funding, polyperp-markets), so an agent must infer selection from names.

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