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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: scope is limited to *open* strikes across a fixed 13-city universe, and it is purely market data with no computation. No auth or rate-limit notes, but nothing essential is missing for a read-only board.

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 with the use case front-loaded and zero filler. The quoted search phrase in sentence one is slightly unusual phrasing but still earns its place as a trigger.

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 annotations covering safety, an output schema covering the return shape, and fully described params, the description only needs to convey scope and intent — which it does. An agent can decide to call this and how to filter without further information.

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 both optional params are documented there, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only repeats city format examples ('nyc', 'KXHIGHCHI') already present in the schema description, and says nothing about the 'day' parameter or its 'all' default.

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 resource (open Kalshi daily-high strikes across 13 cities) and enumerates the payload (YES price, settlement station/source, comparison rule, close time, NWS forecast high). The closing 'Market data only' separates it cleanly from the analytic siblings (calculate_ev, kelly_size, edge_alerts).

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 concrete trigger, and 'Market data only' rules out the quantitative work the sibling tools do. It doesn't explicitly name which sibling to use for odds analysis, so the routing is implied rather than stated.

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