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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that the facts are 'canonical' and 'public,' which tells the agent these are authoritative reference data rather than live market state — modest added value beyond the annotations.

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 with no filler, and the core scope is front-loaded in the first clause. Minor deduction for the fragmentary construction, which reads as a label rather than a complete statement of what the tool does.

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 no explanation, and with no parameters the calling burden is low. Still, the description leaves the boundary against overlapping rule/fee/contract tools unstated, and 'actor conditions' plus 'fund flows' are vague enough that an agent cannot confidently predict whether this tool or a more targeted sibling answers a given question.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description does not misleadingly imply any filtering or selector inputs.

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 resource concretely — canonical public protocol facts covering resolution timing, final review, bonds, fund flows, and actor conditions — which is a distinguishable scope from most siblings. It is a noun-phrase fragment rather than a verb+resource statement, so the agent must infer that the tool 'returns' these facts, but the content covered is specific.

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?

It implicitly routes one case away from this tool by saying publicly available actions are in the capability catalogue and per-market action flags, which is useful disambiguation. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to call this versus overlapping siblings such as kellian_get_contracts, kellian_get_fees, or kellian_get_market_resolution_state.

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