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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return payload (yes bid/ask and last price as probabilities, volume, close time) and that results are limited to open events. However, it says nothing about authentication, rate limits, pagination, or result ordering, which matter for a market-data search.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb and exchange identity, and the parenthetical category list efficiently conveys scope. The first sentence is somewhat run-on, stacking description and return fields in one breath.

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 the return-field detail need not be repeated, and the description covers purpose and scope adequately. The gaps are the undocumented query parameter and the missing routing against sibling prediction-market search tools, which leaves the definition only minimally sufficient.

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 0% and neither parameter is described. The description never explains what 'q' should contain (ticker, keyword, category?) or what 'limit' bounds (default 10, max?), leaving an agent to guess query syntax for a search tool.

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 (search) plus resource (Kalshi, the US-regulated prediction exchange) and enumerates event categories, so an agent knows it returns open markets. It does not name the sibling prediction-market tools (polymarket_search, manifold_search, prediction_markets_search), so differentiation from them rests only on the 'US-regulated' hint rather than an explicit contrast.

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?

'Use for US economic and political event odds' gives an explicit usage condition that implicitly separates it from global/crypto-oriented prediction market siblings. There are no exclusions or named alternatives, so an agent comparing polymarket_search vs kalshi_search still has to infer the boundary.

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