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 only needs to add behavior beyond that. It does add that the main event result is present 'once known', which is useful context, but says nothing about paging behavior, result completeness for future cards, or rate 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?

A single dense sentence with the resource and returned fields front-loaded and no filler. It stops just short of a 5 because the field list crowds out any guidance an agent would need for paging.

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 compensates by naming the return fields, which is the key thing an agent needs here. Remaining gaps (pagination semantics, behavior for cards without a result yet) are minor for a filtered list endpoint.

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 all five parameters (limit, offset, status, date_from, date_to) are already documented in structured data. The description's 'by date' phrasing aligns with the date filters but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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+resource ('MMA fight cards' returned by date) and enumerates the payload (name, date, status, main event result). It is clearly distinguishable from get_mma_event by the plural 'cards' framing, though it never explicitly names the singular sibling.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives such as get_mma_event for a single card. 'By date' weakly implies the date_from/date_to filters but leaves usage entirely to inference.

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