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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine domain context beyond them: the data reflects play-money paper traders rather than real on-chain participants, and 'open interest' is defined as total shares held per outcome. It stops short of access requirements or any caveats about data freshness.

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 tight sentences: the identity and returned metrics come first, the disambiguation second. No redundant restatement of the title and nothing that could be cut.

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 shape need not be explained; the description covers the entity scope, the metric definitions, and the key disambiguation from sibling tools. For a two-parameter read tool with full annotation and schema coverage, this is sufficient.

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%, with both the market address and chainId ('probes enabled chains if omitted') fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as address format or chain fallback behavior, so the baseline of 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 verb (retrieves holder distribution) and resource (one Kellian market's holders) plus the exact metrics returned: distinct holders, verified-human count, whale count, and shares held per outcome. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the smart-money tools, so an agent can pick it apart from kellian_get_smart_money without opening either schema.

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?

The scoping to 'one Kellian market' plus the explicit exclusion ('Not smart money: these are Kellian's paper traders, not the Polymarket traders on the smart money lists') steers the agent toward kellian_get_smart_money for the other case. There is no positive statement of when this tool is preferred, but the exclusion does most of the routing work.

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