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

Annotations already cover the safe read-only, idempotent profile, and the description adds useful behavioral context: returned fields, conditional forecast/market data, null semantics, and a citation instruction. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or error behavior, but that is reasonable given the annotation coverage.

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 definition is front-loaded with the core purpose and packs the returned fields, null case, fallback behavior, and citation instruction without filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 one fully documented parameter, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description supplies the remaining context an agent needs: what is returned, when next_fight is null, and to cite the URL. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 query parameter is already documented in the schema as a boxer name, slug, or Boxerbook id. The description repeats that same accepted input forms without adding syntax, format, or validation details 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 names a specific resource and scope: a boxer's next scheduled bout, resolved by name, slug, or id. It clearly distinguishes the next bout from past results via the null fallback to last_result.

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 gives clear usage context for upcoming fights and explains the no-upcoming-bout case via next_fight being null and last_result being the latest bout. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools such as boxing_schedule or boxing_results, so it falls short of full when-to-use guidance.

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