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 nothing beyond the field list — no note on freshness, caching, auth, or whether state is derived on-chain versus indexed.

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?

It is a single zero-waste sentence front-loaded with the verb 'Get', which is good structurally. However, the terseness is under-specification rather than true economy; the sentence does not carry enough weight to earn its place as the whole description.

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 annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for a two-parameter lookup in a crowded sibling set, the absence of any parameter or disambiguation guidance leaves an agent unable to call it confidently.

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 0% for two parameters, so the description must compensate — instead it mentions neither marketAddress (format, chain scoping) nor chainId (default chain or required when ambiguous). The gap is entirely unmitigated.

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 names the specific fields returned (marketState, lifecycleStage, stageDeadline, tradingEndsAt, outcome), so the agent knows this is a market-state field read. But it never states the resource (a market) or scopes itself against the many siblings like kellian_get_market, kellian_get_market_resolution_state, or kellian_get_trade_status, which overlap heavily.

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 guidance on when to choose this over kellian_get_market or kellian_get_market_resolution_state, nor any prerequisites. Given roughly 35 siblings, this omission forces the agent to guess from names alone.

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