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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds value by disclosing that a paid plan is required and history is window-limited. It does not contradict annotations; instead, it supplements them with actionable constraints.

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?

The description is two sentences, each earning its place. The first states the core functionality, the second adds key usage constraints. No unnecessary words, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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?

The description explains what the tool does and its access constraints, but omits details about the response format or what constitutes a 'snapshot'. Given no output schema, the agent might need more information to interpret results, though the name and context provide some clarity.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with all 5 parameters documented adequately. The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline without adding extra value.

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 clearly states it retrieves historical yes/no depth snapshots for a Kalshi market by ticker. The verb 'get' and resource 'snapshots' specify the action and object, and the reference to 'historical' distinguishes it from real-time tools like kalshi_get_orderbook.

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?

The description provides important context: requires a paid plan and history is gated by plan window. This helps agents understand prerequisites and constraints. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this vs sibling tools (e.g., kalshi_get_orderbook), though the historical nature is implied.

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