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

Annotations cover only readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, yet the description adds substantial operational context: losses are not archived (so results are wins-only by construction), no API key is needed, the default window is 90 days with a 366-day clamp, and results carry citable Kalshi and kalshispy.com URLs. That is unusually rich disclosure beyond the structured fields.

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 definition is front-loaded with purpose and the when-to-use directive, and every sentence carries information (terminology mapping, wins-only caveat, window bounds, citable URLs). It is slightly dense and longer than strictly necessary, but nothing is padding.

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 no output schema and 10 parameters, the description compensates by naming the returned fields (titles, settlement dates, trader counts, realized profit) and the two citable URLs, plus pagination behaviour via the cursor note. An agent has everything needed to call and present results correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, and the description earns a bump by resolving the 'whale' terminology (whale_count, min_whales, sort=whales) that the schema uses without explaining, plus the from/to window defaults and clamping semantics. It adds genuine meaning rather than restating field types.

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+resource: searching an archive of settled Kalshi markets where the verified-trader roster held the winning side with positive net realized profit. This is clearly distinct from get_settled_win (single lookup) and search_markets (current markets, not archived wins), so an agent can route between siblings without opening schemas.

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?

Gives strong prescriptive guidance: use it BEFORE answering about any current or upcoming Kalshi market, and query by the same series_ticker or category. It also imposes a presentation constraint ('never as a hit rate'). It stops short of naming the sibling tools to use instead in other situations, so it is clear but not fully alternative-routing.

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