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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates this is a read-only bulk operation returning blended live probabilities, resolution dates, and slugs, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose rate limits, pagination behavior, freshness of live probabilities, or how limits beyond the top 20 are handled.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and avoids unnecessary repetition. Slight redundancy in the first two sentences ('All active...markets' vs 'most active...markets') could be tightened, but overall it's efficient.

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 tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description should do more to explain the 'limit' parameter and return format (e.g., what fields are included, whether probabilities are percentages or decimals). It mentions some return contents but lacks detail on the parameter behavior and output structure, leaving gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 1 required parameter and 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to explain the 'limit' parameter at all. It mentions 'top markets by volume' but doesn't specify that the limit applies to the number of markets returned or what the default/max values are. This is a significant omission for an agent needing to know how to control the output size.

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 states a specific verb ('All active...markets'), resource ('science and technology prediction markets'), and scope ('top markets by volume'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling boards like probability_board_politics-us or probability_board_crypto through the science-tech domain and from probability_calendar_science-tech by describing a live probability board rather than a calendar view.

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?

There is clear context: 'for agents tracking the state of science and technology at a glance' and 'bulk read,' which implies when to use it versus drill-down tools. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., for individual market lookups or historical data).

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