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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply states the action and filter options without mentioning default behavior, pagination details, return format, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no structured safety metadata.

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 a single concise sentence that is front-loaded with the main purpose. It is not verbose, but it omits some useful context that could make it more informative, so it is slightly above 'minimum viable' but not exceptional.

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 the tool has 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the response looks like, how pagination works (even though limit/offset are in the schema), or whether there are any restrictions on filter combinations. This makes it incomplete for an AI to fully understand the tool's capabilities and invocation requirements.

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 describes all 7 parameters with 100% coverage, so the description adds little beyond naming a few filter types (ticker, event, status, volume). It does not provide additional meaning or format details beyond what the schema already contains, matching the baseline score.

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 clearly states the action ('Find') and the resource ('markets on Kalshi'), and lists several filter types, making the tool's purpose understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate from similar sibling tools like dome_markets or search_markets, but the mention of Kalshi and specific filters provides reasonable scope.

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 description implies the tool is for finding markets via filters, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternative tools. There is no mention of alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites, so the usage context is only implicit from the verb 'Find'.

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