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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavior about the returned data (top markets by volume, blended live probabilities, resolution dates, slugs) but says nothing about auth needs, rate limits, or how the limit is applied. It is transparent about content but thin on operational behavior.

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-loaded with the core purpose and generally efficient, but it repeats itself ('All active MLB baseball markets' then 'the most active MLB baseball prediction markets') and the bracketed HTTP/price line adds metadata rather than purpose. Still, every sentence is readable and earns most of 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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what comes back (live probabilities, resolution dates, slugs), which is exactly the return-value information an agent needs. It is nearly complete for a simple board tool, lacking only limit behavior and any usage exclusions.

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 0%, so the sole 'limit' parameter is undocumented everywhere. The description never mentions limit, its range (1-50), or its default (20), so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap. 'Top markets by volume' implies a bounded set but does not explain the parameter.

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 and resource ('All active MLB baseball markets with live probabilities'), and its sport-specific scope cleanly distinguishes it from the sports-nba, sports-nfl, and sports-soccer board siblings. An agent can identify it as the MLB board without opening the 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?

It provides context ('the bulk read for agents tracking the state of MLB baseball at a glance') and implies drill-down via 'per-market slugs', suggesting probability_get. But it never explicitly names alternatives or states when NOT to use this versus probability_movers_sports-mlb, probability_calendar_sports-mlb, or probability_board_delta — usage is implied rather than directed.

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