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 does disclose useful traits: records are in date order, carry 'blended probabilities,' and are pre-filtered to NBA. However it omits the read-only nature, pagination, rate limits, and return shape details beyond a pointer to /v1/calendar.

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 opening two sentences restate the same idea ('Upcoming NBA basketball event resolutions… Upcoming NBA basketball market resolutions…'), which is redundant. The trailing HTTP/pricing/docs block is padded metadata, though the tool's distinguishing facts are front-loaded.

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 and no annotations, the description should do heavier lifting. It delegates return shape to 'same shape as /v1/calendar' and says nothing about the two input parameters, so an agent must still open the schema to call 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description never mentions either parameter. The required 'days' control (default 14, range 1-90) and the enum 'category' parameter are entirely undocumented, and the description does not explain why an NBA-pre-filtered endpoint would still expose a category filter.

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?

Gives a specific verb+resource: 'Upcoming NBA basketball market resolutions in date order with current blended probabilities.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling probability_calendar by noting it is 'pre-filtered to NBA basketball markets' with 'Same shape as /v1/calendar.' An agent can select it 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?

The phrase 'the forward calendar of NBA basketball events an agent can position around' implies when it is useful, but no explicit when/when-not conditions or named alternatives (e.g., probability_board_sports-nba, probability_movers_sports-nba) are given. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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