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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: bucketing by time windows, flagging CFTC-sensitive categories, and the look-ahead window. This goes beyond typical descriptions, though it omits output format details and any limitations.

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 four short, impactful sentences. It front-loads the purpose, then provides bucketing, flagging, and usage context. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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?

Given 3 optional params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides strong context: what it does, how results are organized, special flags, and when to use it. It lacks explicit return-structure details, but is sufficient for a read-only calendar tool.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage for all three parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds minor context by tying hours_ahead to the listed buckets and mentioning Elections/Politics as relevant categories, but it does not substantially extend the schema definitions.

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 states the tool lists Kalshi markets resolving in the next N hours, with specific bucketing (6h, 24h, 48h, 1 week) and a special flag for CFTC-sensitive categories. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pg_kalshi_market_details or pg_kalshi_search, which focus on different aspects.

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 explicitly recommends use for 'daily surveillance prep' and explains the risk window rationale. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear and actionable.

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