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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, openWorld), so the description's job is added context — and it delivers: Kalshi fees are included in the cheapest-venue calculation, comparison is per side, and no model output is mixed in. It does not state freshness/latency of the book quotes or whether missing venues are omitted, which keeps it below a 5.

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, front-loaded with the quotable use case and then the data scope, with no filler. The em-dash-separated venue list is long but earns its place by defining coverage breadth.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description conveys what comes back (each strike with its book prices and the cheapest venue per side, fees included) and what is excluded (no model, market prices only). Combined with full schema coverage, an agent has everything needed to call 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 every parameter (game, team, player, statType, limit) is already documented in the schema. The description adds only the mapping of stat types to the strike concept (points/rebounds/assists/threes), which aligns with but does not extend the statType enum documentation — 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?

The description names a specific verb+resource: every Kalshi NBA player-prop strike (points, rebounds, assists, threes) placed beside seven named sportsbooks, with the cheapest venue per side. That is far more precise than the title and lets an agent distinguish it from the game-level nba_game_board without opening a 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?

It opens with a concrete usage scenario ("where is LeBron's points line cheapest tonight") and closes with the boundary "Market prices only, no model," implicitly steering modeling/EV work to calculate_ev. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or stating when not to use it, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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