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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuine behavioral note beyond that — the data is a per-forecaster record, not a consensus — but says nothing about coverage requirements (what makes a question "covered"), freshness, or what happens for an uncovered question.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with the interpretive caveat placed last where it belongs. The enumeration of returned fields is a little dense, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a one-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the definition is close to sufficient — return values need not be spelled out. However, a large share of the text describes output already covered by the output schema, while the more useful missing piece (how to choose this over the other forecaster-oriented tools) goes unaddressed.

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%, and the single parameter already documents that it accepts a slug or a Kellian/Polymarket link, including non-mirrored questions. The description's "covered question" phrasing adds only slight framing and no new syntax or format detail, so the schema carries the load.

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?

"Read a covered question's forecasts" gives a specific verb and resource, and the follow-on clause enumerates exactly what comes back (forecaster counts, median, middle half, price, ranked forecasters' latest). It is unambiguous, though it never names the adjacent forecaster tools (kellian_get_forecaster, kellian_list_forecasters, kellian_get_smart_money) that an agent might confuse it with.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no alternatives proposed. The only directional content is the caveat "A record, not a consensus to follow," which tells the agent how to interpret results but not when to select this tool over the forecaster/leaderboard siblings.

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