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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: the data is 'credential-free' (no auth setup needed) and 'normalized' (consistent row shape). It stops short of disclosing rate limits, error behavior, or data freshness.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste: verb, cardinality, and data provenance all appear immediately. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description supplies auth and normalization context. For a simple one-param lookup this is nearly complete, with only sibling disambiguation 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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema fully documents 'ticker' and the baseline is 3. The description adds no format guidance (e.g. ticker casing/syntax) beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('one normalized Kalshi market row'), and the singular 'one ... market row' implicitly contrasts with the plural kalshi_markets list tool. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from the many other single-market siblings like kalshi_market_history, kalshi_market_orderbook, or kalshi_historical_market.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this is the tool for fetching a single market by ticker, but no when-to-use condition or alternative (e.g. kalshi_markets for lists, kalshi_market_orderbook for depth) is named. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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