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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds little beyond that — it does not explain how 'related' is determined, whether results are ranked, or what happens when the anchor market has no siblings.

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 short sentences with no filler; the scope constraint (same category and chain) is front-loaded. The trailing parenthetical is the only dead weight.

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 and params are fully documented, so the main gap is conceptual: 'related' and 'canonical discovery set' are never defined, leaving the agent to guess the selection/ranking logic before deciding whether this beats kellian_list_markets.

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%, including the limit range and default, so the schema carries the burden. The description mentions no parameters and adds no interpretation beyond what the schema states.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('related markets in the same category and chain'), which distinguishes it from the broader kellian_list_markets and the single-market kellian_get_market. The parenthetical '(canonical discovery set)' is undefined jargon that adds no precision.

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?

Says it's 'useful for context around a market before trading or creating', which implies a pre-trade/pre-creation use case. It never names an alternative tool or states when to prefer kellian_list_markets or kellian_get_context instead.

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