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

With only readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure and meets it fully. It explains tie-breaking between Senate and governor races, that prices are never estimated, that all Kalshi contract legs are returned, and notes limitations with 'where provable' and 'where we track them'. This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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 dense but front-loaded, opening with the core purpose and accepted input formats before enumerating return contents and usage examples. Very little is wasted, though the single long list-style sentence is slightly less scannable than a more structured presentation would be.

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 one-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is operationally complete: accepted inputs, returned data fields, tie-breaking behavior, pricing policy, authentication requirements, and example queries are all covered. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke this tool 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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'race' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds concrete examples of accepted formats — state name ('Kansas'), code ('KS'), slug ('michigan-governor'), and district ('TX-34') — plus the disambiguation rule for states with multiple races, making parameter semantics clearer than the schema alone.

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 verb and resource: 'Live Kalshi odds for one 2026 midterm race' and enumerates Senate, governor, and House races. It also emphasizes 'one race,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like senate_map that cover many races at once.

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 description gives concrete 'Use for' examples such as 'who wins the Kansas Senate race' and 'Michigan governor odds', making invocation triggers explicit. It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the examples are sufficient for a single-race lookup tool.

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