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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond them: the upstream source is Wikipedia and the caller is obligated to credit attribution, plus the implicit last/current-year data window. It stops short of describing pagination or rate/coverage limits.

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 dense sentences, with the resource, scope and returned fields front-loaded before the cross-tool pointer. The standing-champions sentence is slightly tangential to this tool's job, but it is short and serves real routing value.

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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the fields a caller receives, and annotations cover the safety profile. Remaining gaps are pagination behavior and the semantics of the status/date filters, which the schema names but does not explain.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters including kind, limit, offset, season, status and date bounds. The description only restates the card vs. title-fight distinction and the default season, adding no syntax or filtering nuance beyond the schema — the baseline 3 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 verb+resource (boxing events) and pins the scope precisely: last and current year, Wikipedia-sourced, covering both fight cards and world title fights. It also enumerates the returned fields (date, venue, city, status, main-event winner), which separates it from the singular get_boxing_event and the mma/motorsport event siblings.

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 implies usage (fetching recent boxing events) and does route one adjacent need — current world champions — to get_standings with the boxing sport. But it never says when to pick this over get_boxing_event or a calendar-style alternative, and it gives no exclusions or prerequisites.

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