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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond that by warning the order may be irreversible and noting that policy and in-app confirmation still apply when enabled — real behavioral context not encoded in annotations, though it says nothing about failure/partial-fill behavior.

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 tight sentences with zero filler, and the highest-stakes fact (money-moving, may be irreversible) is front-loaded before the confirmation caveat and sibling routing hint.

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 needn't be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. The description supplies the irreversibility caveat, confirmation policy, and ticker-lookup route, leaving only minor gaps such as what happens on a rejected or partially filled order.

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%, so all five parameters (side, ticker, platform, contracts, price_cents) are already documented in the schema. The description only adds that the ticker can be resolved via search_predictions, which is a routing hint rather than added parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 action (money-moving order execution) with the exact venue scope (Kalshi/Polymarket) and resource (prediction-market contract order). An agent can distinguish this from the co-listed execute_trade because the prediction-market constraint is explicit.

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 to search_predictions when the ticker is unknown, which is a concrete alternative-plus-condition. It does not, however, distinguish itself from execute_trade or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.

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