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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: this is an estimate with a stated error characteristic (Kalshi's app shows the exact value), it incorporates fees and expected funding, and it is free. That is useful disclosure, though return-level detail is left implicit.

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 trigger phrase and the core explanation are front-loaded and the whole thing reads as one efficient block. The 11-asset enumeration duplicates the schema enum, which is mild waste, but the example and the estimate caveat earn their place.

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, the description carries the return-value burden and does so — it names the liquidation price, the percent move, fees, and expected funding. Combined with annotations covering safety and a 100%-documented input schema, an agent has everything needed to call this 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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter (side, asset, entry, margin, leverage, hold_days) is already documented with defaults and accepted formats. The description restates the asset list and frames leverage semantics in prose but adds no parameter syntax or format meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource — it estimates a Kalshi perp's liquidation price and the percent move to it — with a concrete example (5x BTC long ~8% away). It is unambiguous about what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from the closely related sibling perps_board, so it stops short of a 5.

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 'where does a 5x bitcoin long liquidate on Kalshi'" gives a clear, concrete triggering context so the agent knows when to reach for it. However, there are no when-not conditions and no explicit routing against alternatives like perps_board or kelly_size.

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