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

The annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description builds on that by disclosing the live Kalshi source, the exact data breakdown (strike breakdown, days-until, rate path, current fed funds rate, cross-venue check with gap in pp), and that it is free with no key. It omits update frequency and rate limits, but adds substantial operational context beyond annotations.

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 description is two tight sentences: the first front-loads when to use it, the second enumerates the payload. Every clause adds useful scope or content detail with no filler.

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 no-parameter, read-only data tool with an output schema, this description provides ample context: what it returns, which meetings are covered, the cross-venue comparison, and the free/no-key access condition. Nothing an agent needs to select or call it is missing.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema needs no parameter semantics. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4, and the description appropriately does not invent parameter details.

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 resource (Fed/FOMC rate odds) and a clear retrieval action, with example queries that pin down the exact intent. No sibling tool covers Fed policy odds, so it is trivially distinguishable.

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?

It explicitly gives two when-to-use triggers: 'will the Fed cut, hold or hike' and 'next FOMC meeting odds'. It does not state when-not to use it or name an alternative, but no sibling offers competing Fed-rate coverage.

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