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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description adds the one behavioral trait annotations cannot express: the values are defaults, not authoritative per-market truth, so acting on them without confirmation is risky. It also spells out the ORDERBOOK taker-fee incidence (charged to the economic taker on both wallet-router market orders and operator-matched signed limit fills) plus claim exit treatment, which is real operational context.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the scope and then the critical caveat; nothing is padding. The first sentence is dense with nested parentheticals, which slightly slows parsing, but every clause carries fee-structure information an agent needs.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the remaining burden: what the two lanes are, who pays the taker fee, and that the figures must be re-confirmed per market. Nothing an agent needs before calling or before relying on the result is missing.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline applies and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No parameter claims are made or needed.

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 (read) and resource (canonical two-lane protocol fee schedule) and immediately decomposes it into the two lanes, LMSR and ORDERBOOK, with which fee applies where. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling per-market tools like kellian_get_quote and kellian_get_market, which the description itself names as the per-market counterparts.

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 frames these as factory DEFAULT rates and instructs the agent to confirm the per-market value via tradingRules on market detail or fee on kellian_get_quote before executing. That is a clear when-to-use-this vs when-to-use-alternatives rule with a named follow-up tool, not an inference the agent has to make.

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