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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the output format (ALLOW/MONITOR/WARN/BLOCK + 0-100 score + reference cases), a key limitation (cannot identify trader identity due to API anonymization), and the pattern-matching methodology against disciplinary cases. This is exemplary transparency for a tool with zero 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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence contributes: regulatory basis, input/function, output, and limitation. No wasted words; it is concise yet information-dense.

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?

The description explains the return values and limitations well, which is essential since there is no output schema. However, it doesn't clarify that all three parameters are optional and that at least one identifier (ticker or event_ticker) is likely needed to specify a market. This ambiguity is a minor gap given the tool's moderate complexity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions; it mentions 'market metadata' and 'candidate_name' only indirectly. The schema already explains ticker, event_ticker, and candidate_name, so the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 regulatory reference (CFTC Rule 5.17(z)) and states the exact purpose: analyzing Kalshi market metadata to detect insider-trading liability for decision-makers. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like pg_market_integrity_scan or pg_insider_alert_signed by focusing on conflict-of-interest pre-trade checks.

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 frames the tool as a 'pre-trade check' and explicitly notes it cannot identify actual trader identity, advising to 'pair with internal surveillance for full enforcement.' This gives clear context for when to use it, though it does not name specific alternative tools or state explicit 'when not to use' scenarios beyond the internal-surveillance caveat.

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