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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the description correctly spends its words elsewhere: the 20-result cap, best-match-first ordering, the returned field list, and an explicit citation obligation ("Cite the url"). It does not address zero-result behavior or whether the cap implies no pagination, but the added context is well beyond what the annotations supply.

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 sentences, zero filler, with the core action and result shape front-loaded and the chaining instruction second. Every clause carries information an agent needs: cap, ordering, return fields, next step, citation rule.

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?

For a one-parameter search tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, this is essentially complete; the returned fields are even enumerated. The only minor omission is what to do when nothing matches (empty result vs. suggest alternative spelling), which an agent might otherwise need to infer.

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 q as "a name or part of it" with length bounds. The description adds real semantic value by framing q as a fuzzy/ambiguous-match input ("best match first", "spelling unsure"), which tells the agent how to interpret ranked results rather than expecting an exact match.

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 ("Find boxers by name"), plus scope details: max 20 results, best-match ordering, and the exact fields returned (id, slug, name, country, division, record). This clearly separates it from siblings like boxer (single lookup) and next_fight, which the description explicitly routes to.

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?

"Use this when a name is ambiguous or its spelling unsure" gives an explicit triggering condition, and the follow-up "then call boxer or next_fight with the id" defines the downstream workflow. It does not explicitly state the negative case (e.g., if you already know the slug, skip search and call boxer directly), so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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