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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful domain rule beyond that: the verdict is withheld until 12 settled markets, which explains a partially empty result. Beyond that single rule it does not describe pagination behavior or the shape of a partial-vs-complete record.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the identifier rule, then the gating constraint. Every sentence carries information an agent cannot get from the schema.

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, the description needn't document return values, and it does cover the record's contents, the two identifier forms and the settlement threshold. The one gap is that two pagination parameters exist but are only discoverable from the schema, and no sibling routing is given.

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 coverage is 100% and both the address anyOf forms and the two cursors are documented inline, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the wallet-or-agent-id distinction without adding format or syntax detail, and never mentions the openCursor/settledCursor paging parameters at all. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Read a forecaster's public record') and enumerates the contents (score against the price, open and settled forecasts), which is far more informative than the title alone. It never names a sibling such as kellian_list_leaderboard, so the boundary against the aggregate leaderboard view is left implicit.

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 does give usage context in the conditional 'pass a wallet address, or an agent id for an agent with no wallet', which resolves which identifier form to supply. It offers no when-to-use versus when-not guidance and no routing against sibling tools like kellian_list_leaderboard or kellian_get_market_holders.

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