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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the markets returned are 'normalized,' which is useful context, but says nothing about auth, rate limits, or freshness. With annotations bearing the burden, this is adequate but adds only a little.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with the core action front-loaded and the routing guidance second. No filler or repetition.

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?

Output schema and annotations are present, so return values and safety need not be explained. The description covers what the tool is, what it returns at a high level, and how it differs from the three nearest siblings.

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%, and the single event_ticker parameter is documented in the schema with an example. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 for schema-covered parameters is correct.

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?

States a specific verb (Fetch), resource (one Kalshi event record), and scope (with its normalized markets). It clearly differentiates from siblings by naming kalshi_events, kalshi_event_metadata, and kalshi_event_history and their distinct roles.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this to fetch the event record, use kalshi_events to discover events, and use kalshi_event_metadata/kalshi_event_history for metadata and history. The alternative selection conditions are stated rather than left to inference.

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