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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the empty-list-means-not-on-record-yet case, the UTC start time, and the instruction to cite the url. It just doesn't cover pagination or the shape of the record.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, then the selector, then the empty-result and citation rules. No filler and nothing buried.

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 and the description still sketches the returned fields and the empty case, so return semantics are well covered for a two-parameter lookup. The only gap is the unaddressed case of supplying both ids or neither, relevant given zero required parameters.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning the schema does not: the two ids are alternative selectors (give one or the other, trading bout-level for card-level scope), which is not expressed in the schema since both are optional.

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 the verb and the exact resource returned (broadcasters: platform, region, link) and scopes it to a bout or a whole card plus the card's UTC start time. That is enough to separate it from `bout` and `boxing_schedule`, though it doesn't name those siblings explicitly.

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?

"Give bout_id or event_id" tells the agent how to select the scope (single bout vs. whole card), which implicitly signals when to use it. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer a sibling tool, nor what happens if both ids or neither are supplied.

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