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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful return-content context (what details a card/fight includes) but says nothing about auth, rate limits, or behavior when neither optional parameter is supplied, so it adds only moderate value beyond annotations.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the primary scope (full card) before the bout_id variant. No filler, though the packed field list makes it slightly overloaded.

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 helpfully enumerates the return fields, which is good. But both parameters are optional (required=0), and the description never says what happens when neither is provided, nor does it frame this against the get_mma_events sibling – a notable gap for a read tool with no output schema.

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 both parameters carry their own descriptions ('event code from get_mma_events: the full card', 'bout code: that fight with its stats'). The description restates the bout_id behavior but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so 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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (MMA event/card), and enumerates the returned content (weight class, fighters, winner, method, round, judges' scores, stats), which is unusually specific. The singular 'card' vs the sibling get_mma_events (plural list) is distinguishable by implication, though the sibling is never named 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?

The phrase 'or with bout_id one fight' implies the two operating modes, letting an agent infer which parameter selects a full card versus a single fight. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over get_mma_events or get_mma_fighter, and 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.