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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral fact beyond them: action detail fields are conditionally present. That caveat is useful but left vague — no explanation of what 'public surface' means or how the caller should handle its absence.

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, no filler, with the resource and payload front-loaded. Slightly undermined by jargon ('public surface') that costs clarity without adding information.

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 need not be explained, and the description correctly frames the payload. What is missing is the routing information an agent needs in a 38-sibling toolset: how this differs from get_market_state and when to prefer it.

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 address (market contract address) and chainId (probes enabled chains if omitted) fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, 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?

The description states a specific resource (per-market public resolution state) and enumerates its payload: stage, reason, deadlines, action flags, final outcome. That is far more concrete than a tautology. However, it never distinguishes itself from the close sibling kellian_get_market_state or kellian_list_pending_resolution_markets, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance: no statement of when this is preferred over kellian_get_market_state, nor when it is unnecessary. The only conditional sentence ('Action details appear only when their public surface is available') describes output shape, not invocation criteria, so selection remains guesswork.

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