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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It usefully discloses return content (blended live probabilities, resolution dates, per-market slugs) and operational metadata (HTTP GET endpoint, $0.04 x402 price, docs URL), which is real context beyond the schema. However it says nothing about pagination behavior, failure modes, or freshness beyond 'live'.

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, then elaborates the payload, then a bracketed metadata footer. Mostly efficient, though 'one call' and 'one-call board' restate the same idea twice.

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 read-only board with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the return shape and access cost. But it omits any documentation of the sole parameter and does not address how many markets are returned or how limit bounds the board.

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?

There is one parameter (limit, 1-50, default 20) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it. The agent gets no guidance on how limit interacts with the board's size or what a truncated result implies, so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 and resource: 'All active soccer markets with live probabilities in one call,' and identifies the sport domain, which is what separates it from the mlb/nba/nfl board siblings. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from probability_movers_sports-soccer or probability_calendar_sports-soccer, but the board/scope framing is clear.

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 soccer at a glance' implies when to use it (overview/bulk), but names no alternative and no exclusion. An agent cannot tell from the text whether to prefer this over probability_movers_sports-soccer or probability_calendar_sports-soccer for a given task.

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