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 useful context that these records are excluded from the regular events endpoint, but says nothing about pagination behavior or result ordering despite the cursor parameter.

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 tight sentences with zero waste; the exclusion caveat and the routing alternatives are both front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers purpose, scope exclusion, and sibling routing for a simple two-parameter list tool. Only deep pagination semantics are left implicit, a minor gap.

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% — limit (default 25, max 200) and cursor are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 for schema-complete tools applies.

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') and resource ('Kalshi multivariate-event records'), and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by noting these records are 'excluded from the regular events endpoint.' An agent can tell it apart from kalshi_events and kalshi_event_metadata without opening any 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 the agent: use kalshi_events for standard events, kalshi_event_metadata for event details, implying this tool is for the multivariate subset. The alternatives and their conditions are named, though the selection condition for this tool ('multivariate') is implied rather than spelled out.

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