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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful behavior beyond those annotations by stating the unknown-id error behavior and that the result is Markdown text with metadata.

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 return scope, then adds only the key operating rules: pass id unchanged, unknown ids error, cite the url. There is no wasted text.

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?

An output schema exists, annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the schema fully documents the single parameter. The description completes the picture with document scope, error behavior, output format, and citation guidance.

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 the schema already documents the accepted id forms. The description adds the useful constraint to pass the id unchanged, but it does not add substantial parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 retrieval operation and lists exactly what document types it returns: boxer card, bout details, card with bouts, or division rankings. It also distinguishes the tool from search by requiring an id returned by search.

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?

It clearly says to use an id returned by search and to pass that id unchanged, and it documents the unknown-id error case. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools such as boxer, bout, or rankings, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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