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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, closed-world, non-destructive behavior. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: fuzzy name resolution with a best-match result plus a secondary other_matches list, and a citation requirement on the returned url.

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 and single-paragraph, but roughly half of it is a long enumeration of returned fields that is duplicated by the existing output schema, so that clause does not fully earn its place. The genuinely load-bearing sentences are the search-resolution one and the cite-the-url one.

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 an output schema present, the description needn't explain return structure, and it covers the two things an agent could get wrong: ambiguous name matching and attribution. Adding which sibling to prefer for a list-style lookup would make it complete.

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 coverage is 100% and already documents the name/slug/id forms, so the baseline is 3. The description earns one more point by explaining the resolution behavior specific to a name value (site search, best match, other_matches list) — semantics the schema cannot express.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('One boxer's card by name, slug or Boxerbook id') and enumerates the returned content, so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It never explicitly distinguishes itself from the very close sibling search_boxers, leaving that boundary to be inferred from 'returns the best match / other_matches'.

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?

Gives concrete in-tool guidance: a name is resolved via site search, and other_matches must be checked when the name is common — plus an obligation to cite the url. It stops short of naming alternatives (search_boxers, next_fight, rankings) or stating when not to use this tool.

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