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

The description richly discloses behavior beyond the annotations: it explains that matching is by keyword overlap, that pairing remains unverified, that compatibility warnings can coexist with matched pairs, that Kalshi fees are not modeled, and that spreads are gross not net. It also explains skipped/unclassified legs and the meaning of null temporal alignment. This is exemplary transparency.

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 long, but it is densely informative and organized into labeled sections covering modes, response fields, safety codes, fees, and skipped comparisons. Every section earns its place given the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, though some sentences could be tightened without loss of meaning.

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 tool with three optional parameters, no output schema, and complex cross-venue semantics, the description is remarkably complete. It covers return-value structure, warning codes, edge cases, fee treatment, matching limitations, and the meaning of null/unknown values. An agent has nearly everything needed to invoke the tool and interpret its output safely.

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?

Although the schema already documents all parameters at 100% coverage, the description adds substantial meaning: it enumerates the topic shortcuts, clarifies that explicit params override the mapped side, explains that both modes use the same matching logic, and warns about the tradeability implications. This goes well beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 clearly identifies a specific function: computing the cross-venue spread between Kalshi and Polymarket for the same resolving question. It describes the resource, the comparison, and the two modes of operation. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from related siblings like polymarket_arbitrage or polymarket_edges, stopping short of a full 5.

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 clear usage context: it explains when to use the topic shortcuts versus explicit event pairings, and warns that pre-mapped topics often return compatibility warnings and are not necessarily tradeable. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when this tool should be preferred over them, so it lacks exclusion guidance.

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