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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the description's job is lighter. It usefully adds that results are capped at 15, include records, and carry a citation requirement ('Cite the url'), which is real behavioral context beyond annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action (top 15 of a division) and the source choice. No filler; every phrase contributes actionable detail.

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 values, and it covers the essentials an agent needs: scope (top 15), source selection, division format, and citation behavior. Nothing critical 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% and both parameters (division, publisher with enum) are already documented in the schema. The description mostly restates accepted formats and the default rather than adding syntax or edge-case guidance, so 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 verb+resource: returns 'the top 15 of a division' with the rating source enumerated. It clearly distinguishes this from result/schedule siblings like boxing_results or boxing_schedule by describing a ranked list, and even names the two selectable ranking systems.

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?

Explains how to choose between the Boxerbook default and a publisher list, and how to specify a division (code or name). It gives clear usage context but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when NOT to use it.

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