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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description is free to add the semantics that matter: unfiltered sequences are gap-free and wallet-global, while filters introduce intentional skips and invalidate cursors unless the exact filter set is reused. That is genuine behavioral disclosure beyond the structured fields, though it says nothing about event ordering, retention, or empty-result behavior.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource scope before the cursor rules. Dense domain jargon ('stall/resync unfiltered from the last contiguous sequence') requires careful reading but no sentence is filler.

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?

With annotations covering safety and an output schema covering return shape, the description supplies the one thing structured data cannot: correct cursor protocol and the filter/cursor coupling. Only gaps are pagination exhaustion beyond `limit` and event ordering, which are minor for a journal-replay tool.

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 80%, and the description's cursor prose largely restates the afterSequence schema text ('accept only last+1, stall on a gap'). The filter parameters (chainId, orderHash, marketAddress) are already labeled 'Optional audit filter' in the schema, and the description adds no new detail for them, 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 uses a specific verb+resource pair ('Replay the authenticated wallet's durable private order lifecycle journal'), which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from sibling read tools like kellian_get_open_orders or kellian_list_trade_fills. It does not explicitly name a sibling to route away from, so it stops short of a 5.

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 gives strong operational guidance on cursor handling (accept only last+1, stall on gaps, restart unfiltered replay from the last contiguous value) and warns that filtered cursors are audit-only. However, it never says when an agent should prefer this tool over adjacent ones (e.g., polling open orders vs. replaying the journal), leaving the selection decision implied.

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