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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value: newest-first ordering, the calendar-day window semantics with default 2, and an explicit instruction to cite each bout's URL. It does not discuss pagination or how many results to expect.

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?

Scope, ordering, return fields, usage examples, and the citation requirement are all front-loaded with no filler. The opening sentence is long and clause-heavy, which slightly hurts scanability, but no sentence is wasted.

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 and rich annotations, the description need only explain scope and behavior, which it does. It covers the default time window, ordering, and key result fields. The main gap is that it never explains how the optional country or division parameters narrow results.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters, including the days default and min/max and the country/division formats. The description reinforces the days semantics with '1 = today, 2 = last night and today' but says nothing about country or division filtering. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 resource ('completed professional bouts'), a precise scope ('last N days ... up to 14'), ordering ('newest first'), and the fields returned. The word 'completed' distinguishes it from the forward-looking boxing_schedule sibling, so an agent can route between them without opening a 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?

Gives concrete use-case examples ('who won last night', 'results this weekend') and makes clear this is for past results, which implicitly excludes boxing_schedule and next_fight. It stops short of naming the alternative tool or stating when not to use it, so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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