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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description still adds substantial behavioral context: prices are cents equal to implied probability, the Kalshi exchange is CFTC-regulated, Minor League Cricket prices follow cricket_minor_league's rule only when Kalshi's book is real, and the tool is informational only with legal caveats. No contradiction with annotations.

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 sentences deliver the core purpose first, then price interpretation, then edge-case and legal details. It is slightly dense and the Minor League Cricket sentence is convoluted, but every sentence contributes useful information rather than padding.

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 compensates by explicitly explaining the output format ('42 means the market prices a 42% chance'). The two parameters are fully documented in the schema, annotations cover read-only safety, and the description covers behavior and caveats. Nothing essential 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%—both team_a and team_b have descriptions and examples. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning (e.g., format constraints or team-name normalization), but per the baseline for high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Live prediction-market prices for a cricket match from Kalshi... shown beside this server's own win probability.' This clearly states what the tool does and differentiates it from siblings like cricket_win_probability (model probability) and cricket_minor_league (overlapping market rule).

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 text implies usage context—comparing Kalshi market prices to the server's own win probability, and noting a Minor League Cricket crossover with cricket_minor_league. However, it never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over alternatives or provides exclusions, leaving the guidance to inference.

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