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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose response shape (top markets by volume, blended live probabilities, resolution dates, slugs), that it is a single bulk call, the HTTP route, and the $0.04 x402 price. It omits whether quotes are real-time or delayed (relevant given the -delayed sibling variants), pagination/limit behavior, and rate limits.

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 key fact ('All active NFL football markets...') and the metadata bracket is compact and useful. Minor redundancy between the first two sentences, which both restate the 'one-call NFL board' idea.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover everything; it does a good job on the return payload and cost, but leaves the only input parameter undocumented and says nothing about freshness/pagination. Adequate but with a real gap for an agent sizing its request.

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% and the single required 'limit' parameter (default 20, max 50) is never mentioned in the description. 'Top markets by volume' hints that the result set is ranked and therefore truncatable, but nothing explains the cap, default, or what happens past 50, so the description does not compensate for the undocumented schema.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource+scope: 'All active NFL football markets with live probabilities in one call.' The NFL-specific scoping cleanly distinguishes it from the near-identical siblings probability_board_sports-nba, -mlb, and -soccer, and the description even previews the payload (volume-ranked markets, blended probabilities, resolution dates, slugs).

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 bulk read for agents tracking the state of NFL football at a glance' states a clear use case, and 'per-market slugs for drill-down' implicitly routes the agent to a detail tool after the bulk read. It stops short of naming alternatives explicitly (e.g., probability_board_delta for changes, probability_get for a single market) or stating when not to use it.

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