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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond that: the data is live, the scope is remaining 2026 meetings, and it includes a cross-venue comparison against Polymarket and CME futures with a gap measured in pp. No auth, freshness, or staleness caveats are given.

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, zero filler: the usage trigger is front-loaded, followed by a dense enumeration of returned content. Every clause earns its place and nothing is repeated from structured fields.

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 an output schema present, the return shape needn't be explained, and the description correctly focuses on scope and coverage instead. It is nearly complete for a no-arg tool; the only minor gap is no indication of behavior when data is unavailable (e.g., between meetings or markets closed).

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate beyond what the empty schema already conveys. The baseline of 4 applies; no additional parameter meaning is needed or missing.

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 and resource: it returns live Kalshi odds for each remaining 2026 FOMC meeting, with an explicit inventory of what it covers (strike breakdown, days-until, rate path, current fed funds rate, cross-venue check). This is precise enough that an agent can distinguish it from generic market tools like market_pulse or base_rate_gap without opening the schema.

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 opening clause gives concrete query intents that select this tool: "will the Fed cut, hold or hike" and "next FOMC meeting odds". That is clear when-to-use guidance, but it names no alternatives and gives no exclusions, so an agent must infer its boundary against sibling rate/market tools.

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