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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it is an estimate, the Kalshi app shows the exact value, it includes fees and expected funding, and it is free — disclosing accuracy limits and cost.

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?

Front-loaded with the triggering use case, then result description, caveat, and coverage list — a logical flow. It is slightly padded by the asset enumeration that is already in the schema, but overall tight and well-structured.

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?

For a read-only estimator with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description tells the agent what is computed (liquidation price, % move, fees, funding), how accurate it is, and its cost — everything needed to invoke and interpret it 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 the schema already documents all six parameters including defaults and formats. The description only restates the asset list, which duplicates the enum, and adds no param syntax 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?

States a specific verb (estimates) and resource (Kalshi perp liquidation price), and quantifies the output (% move to liquidation, fees, funding). The example query 'where does a 5x bitcoin long liquidate on Kalshi' makes the purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from the perps_board sibling.

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 'Use for' preface gives a concrete triggering question, which is clear usage context. However, it does not name an alternative tool (e.g. perps_board) or state when-not to use it, so it falls short of explicit routing.

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