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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/destructive=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the strict-comparison settlement rule, the settlement station and source, and the close time — meaningful for interpreting the odds. No access requirements or throttling mentioned.

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?

Three tight sentences: trigger phrase first, payload contents second, parameter hint and scope guard last. No redundant restatement of the title, and the "Market data only" fragment earns its place as a routing guard.

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 an output schema present and both parameters fully documented, the remaining burden is scope and semantics — both covered (13 cities, settlement rule, market-data-only). An agent has everything needed to decide and call 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (day, city) are already fully documented with examples and defaults. The description repeats the same city examples without adding syntax, format, or fallback behavior beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 clear resource (Kalshi daily-high temperature markets across 13 cities) and enumerates exactly what each row contains: YES price, settlement station/source, strict-comparison rule, close time, and NWS forecast high. No sibling tool touches weather markets, so the agent can identify this as the weather-market board without ambiguity.

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?

"Use for 'Kalshi NYC high temperature odds'" gives a direct trigger, and "Market data only" implicitly routes EV/edge/arbitrage needs to siblings like calculate_ev or find_arbitrage. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, so it lands just below the top band.

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