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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scope of the payload (full bout list, method codes, titles) but says nothing about permissions, rate limits, pagination, or failure behavior, so it is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that opens with the core resource and then enumerates the returned fields compactly. The dense enumeration of method codes is slightly list-heavy but every term 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?

No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does so thoroughly by listing the bout fields and result codes. It remains incomplete only on operational behavior (pagination, errors), which is minor for a read-only single-resource lookup.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema fully documents event_id, including its origin ('from get_boxing_events'). The description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, so the baseline 3 for fully-covered schema applies.

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?

Names a specific resource (one boxing event) and precisely scopes it ('every bout from the main event down'), which implicitly distinguishes it from the plural sibling get_boxing_events. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling or stating the distinction, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

The description contains no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or comparison to alternatives such as get_boxing_events or get_boxing_fighter. The only workflow hint ('from get_boxing_events') lives in the schema, not the description, so the description itself offers no routing guidance.

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