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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). Beyond that, the description discloses the payload contents (every leg's price, volume, link, seat holder, rating, forecaster bands) and asserts a data-quality guarantee ("Prices are never estimated"), which is real added context. It omits freshness/caching or coverage caveats for races with no market, keeping it at 4.

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 use case, then the resource, then swap-format flexibility, then the return contents — every clause carries information. It is a long, dense sentence and the parenthetical adds clutter, but nothing is redundant 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?

With only one parameter and no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does list the returned fields plus a reliability guarantee, which is enough to call the tool confidently. Missing only edge-case behavior for ambiguous or nonexistent races.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema description already enumerates state name/code, slug, and district with the "TX-34" example. The description restates the same set ("by state, code, slug or district") without adding new syntax, disambiguation rules, or normalization behavior, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource with scope: "Live Kalshi odds for one 2026 Senate, governor or competitive House race." The word "one" plus the race-type enumeration implicitly separates it from senate_map (all races) and fed_rate_odds (rate markets), so an agent can route 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?

Leads with "Use for ..." and supplies two concrete trigger queries ("who wins the Kansas Senate race", "Michigan governor odds"), which is clear positive guidance. It does not name alternatives or say when NOT to use it (e.g., other years, national maps), so it stops short of a 5.

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