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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: live Kalshi data, 'prices are never estimated' (a data-freshness/trust guarantee), and an enumeration of what each leg contains.

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 usage examples before the payload description. Efficient, though the trailing list of returned fields is long enough that it could be tightened.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing returns and does so explicitly (leg price, volume, link, seat holder and rating, forecaster bands, race page). For a single-parameter read tool, nothing needed to call it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'race' parameter is already documented with accepted formats. The description restates those formats (state, code, slug, 'TX-34') without adding syntax or disambiguation rules beyond the schema, so 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: 'Live Kalshi odds for one 2026 Senate, governor or competitive House race.' The 'one race' scoping distinguishes it from senate_map (all races) and fed_rate_odds (a different market class), so an agent can differentiate without opening schemas.

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?

Opens with concrete trigger phrasings ('who wins the Kansas Senate race', 'Michigan governor odds') that map directly to the intended call. It gives clear context for when to use it but names no exclusion or alternative tool for adjacent cases.

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