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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavior annotations cannot express: unmatched queries return an empty list, each hit carries an id for fetch plus a title and canonical url, and id-shaped queries are resolved directly rather than searched.

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 with the core action and then layered with query forms, hit shape, and citation instruction; nearly every clause carries information. It is a dense single paragraph and slightly run-on, but no sentence is filler.

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?

The output schema covers return values, so the description only needs to hint at hit shape (id, title, url) and citation guidance, which it does. For a one-parameter search tool it tells the agent everything needed to call it correctly and what to do with the result.

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 single query parameter, but the description goes further by giving accepted query syntax — two surnames separated by "vs", division names, and id prefixes like bout:123. That syntax guidance is the main thing an agent could not infer from a maxLength-200 string field.

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 and resource ("Search the whole catalog with one query") and then enumerates the entity types covered: boxers by name, bouts by two surnames, cards, divisions, and direct id lookups. This lets an agent distinguish it from narrower siblings like search_boxers or rankings without opening any 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 usage context — connectors that can only call search and fetch should start here — and shows the query forms that select each mode ("Inoue vs Nakatani", "heavyweight rankings"). It does not explicitly say when to prefer the dedicated sibling tools (search_boxers, rankings, bout) over this one, which keeps it short of a 5.

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