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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, and the parenthetical "(read-only)" merely restates one of them. Nothing is added about freshness/staleness of the status, whether the call reverts or errors for an unknown market, or whether on-chain read latency applies.

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?

A single short sentence with the key concept front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though the trailing "(read-only)" is redundant with annotations and earns no place.

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 two-parameter surface is fully documented in the schema. What remains missing is the disambiguation from kellian_get_market_resolution_state, which is the main thing an agent needs in order to pick this tool correctly among ~100 siblings.

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%, so both marketAddress and chainId are already documented (address format, Base 8453 chain ID), which sets the baseline at 3. The description adds no extra meaning — e.g. that chainId defaults or that a mismatched chain yields a not-found result.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Get the current resolution status for a market"), so an agent knows exactly what the call returns conceptually. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the very close sibling kellian_get_market_resolution_state (nor from kellian_get_claim_status / kellian_list_pending_resolution_markets), leaving a real ambiguity unresolved.

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 prerequisite or exclusion, and no pointer to an alternative. With a near-duplicate sibling in the toolset, the absence of any routing rule is a meaningful gap rather than a minor one.

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