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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: pricing is 'market prices only, no model' and the Kalshi fee is included in the comparison. It omits pagination/return-shape details, but that is a minor gap.

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 usage trigger, followed by scope and a key caveat in two sentences. The example queries are slightly verbose but they earn their place by anchoring invocation phrasing.

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 four optional params and no output schema, the description does the needed work of explaining what the result represents (the cheapest venue per side, fee included) and what it is not (model output). Coverage is adequate for a read-only board tool; only pagination/response-format specifics are unaddressed.

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% (game, team, limit with clamping note, market enum), so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description reinforces that moneyline/spread/total are the markets but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already documents.

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 resource and scope: Kalshi NBA moneyline/spread/total compared against a named list of sportsbooks at the same line, with the cheapest venue per side. An agent can distinguish this from player-prop siblings (nba_prop_board) and generic tools (best_available) 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?

The 'Use for...' examples (Knicks moneyline on Kalshi vs the books, cheapest Celtics spread tonight) give concrete trigger phrasings that map directly to invocation. It stops short of naming explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, so it is strong context but not full routing guidance.

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