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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes well beyond that by disclosing how scratch_pct is computed (base 1.8% from a logistic fit, raised by live news, site status, and odds moves), what the not100 flags mean, and that data is refreshed hourly.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose in the first sentence and then details the two views. It is dense but every sentence adds substantive information about output fields, with no filler or repetition of the schema.

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, so the description carries the burden of explaining return values. It thoroughly enumerates the fields for both views, explains the scratch_pct methodology, defines the not100 flags, and notes the hourly refresh cadence, leaving no major gaps for an agent to invoke the tool 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 100%, so the structured field descriptions already define each parameter. The description adds value by detailing exactly what the fighters view and changes view return, which helps an agent pick the correct view enum, and by contextualizing scratch_pct for min_scratch_pct filtering.

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 resource: a scratch risk board for UFC fighters over the next 14 days plus a log of card changes. It is highly specific and an agent can tell it apart from generic MMA tools, but it never names or contrasts with any sibling tool, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 description implies usage by describing the scratch risk board and its 14-day horizon, and it explains what each view returns. However, it never says when to choose this tool over alternatives like invoke_mma_injuries or invoke_mma_projections, and it provides no exclusions or prerequisites.

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