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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the specific vulnerability factors, the output ranking by risk_score, and the ≥30 threshold. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or data freshness, but as a read-only scanning tool these are less critical; the disclosure is substantive.

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 long, front-loaded with the core purpose and criteria, and contains no redundant or filler content. Every sentence contributes meaning, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no output schema, the description clarifies that results are ranked by risk_score and filtered by threshold, which is essential output context. It also lists the key vulnerability dimensions, making the tool self-explanatory for a scan. Minor gaps include not specifying the exact output fields or any data-source caveats, but the description is adequate for selecting and invoking the 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 input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (category filter and max_results, including default and max). The description adds no additional parameter-level context, so the baseline 3 applies for full schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Scan') and resource ('all open Kalshi markets'), and clearly states the tool's function: flag manipulation-vulnerable markets based on concrete criteria (closing soon, low open interest, low liquidity, wide spread, low volume). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming the risk_score threshold and its triage role.

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 phrase 'Daily triage tool' provides clear timing/context for use. It also suggests a complementary tool ('pg_kalshi_resolution_calendar') for a broader compliance briefing, which helps orient the agent. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternative scans to prefer.

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