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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the description needn't restate that this is a safe read. It adds some value by naming the upstream data sources (Wikipedia/Wikidata) and what 'current' means for titles and bouts, but says nothing about rate limits, data staleness, or behavior when both parameters are supplied.

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?

It is a single compact sentence with no filler, which is good, but the compressed '(fighter_id):' colon construction and stacked parentheticals make it feel like shorthand notes rather than a front-loaded statement of purpose. It is efficient without being clearly readable.

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 correctly enumerates the returned fields, which is the main burden. It remains silent on how many 'latest bouts' are returned, pagination, and precedence when name and fighter_id are both provided, leaving gaps for a two-mode lookup tool.

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 both parameters are already documented as 'fighter code (or number) from a bout or the champions' and 'part of a boxer's name, to find the id'. The description only echoes that dual id/name usage and adds no format or matching semantics beyond the schema, so 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource (retrieve a boxer, or find boxers by name) and enumerates the attributes returned (birth date, country, height, reach, stance, record, titles, latest bouts), which lets an agent distinguish it from get_mma_fighter and the generic get_player. The telegraphic colon phrasing is a bit odd but the intent is unambiguous.

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 'or find boxers by name' clause implicitly tells the agent to use the name parameter when it lacks an id, which is useful dual-mode guidance. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over sibling lookups such as get_mma_fighter or the name-based find_* tools, so routing is left to inference.

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