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 real context beyond that: the source is credential-free public market-data JSON (no auth needed), rows are 'settled', and cursor is sourced from a previous Kalshi response. It does not describe rate limits or return shape, but that is minor.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose and keeps the routing sentence at the end. It is somewhat dense and duplicates the cursor/limit schema text, which is redundant, but no sentence is wasted overall.

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?

For a read-only paginated list with an output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies purpose, scope, source, mutual-exclusion constraints, and the detail alternative. Only pagination mechanics beyond the cursor hint are unstated, which is acceptable given the schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates cursor and limit semantics and the mutual exclusivity of tickers/event_ticker/series_ticker and the mve_filter 'exclude' value, but these already appear in the schema descriptions, so it adds little beyond the structured fields.

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 and resource ('Returns normalized settled Kalshi historical market rows') and explicitly scopes it to settled historical data. It names and distinguishes itself from the singular sibling kalshi_historical_market, so an agent can tell the list from the detail without opening either schema.

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 detail retrieval to kalshi_historical_market, giving one clear alternative and the condition that selects it. It does not distinguish when to use this versus the live kalshi_markets/kalshi_markets_history siblings, so guidance is clear but incomplete against the crowded kalshi namespace.

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