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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the coverage window (bouts since 2026, with pre-2026 fights only where Wikipedia/Wikidata exists) and the attribution requirement. This is meaningful behavioral context an agent could not infer from annotations or schema, though rate limits and the significance of idempotentHint=false are unaddressed.

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?

The body is a single sprawling sentence dense with parentheticals and semicolon clauses, front-loading a long field inventory before the simpler name-search mode. Content is mostly relevant but is neither scan-friendly nor clearly front-loaded, which hinders quick agent parsing.

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 carries the return-value burden and largely succeeds: it spells out the record breakdown, conditional profile fields (birth date, height, reach, stance, nationality, weight class, team) and pre-2026 history. The gap is the search mode, where it does not indicate whether a name query returns a list of matches or a single record.

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 (name = partial name to find the id; fighter_id = code from a bout). Per the rubric, baseline is 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting. The description reinforces the retrieve-by-id mode but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema states.

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 names a specific resource (an MMA fighter) and enumerates the record fields returned (wins/losses/draws/no-contests, method breakdowns, profile, history). Combined with the sibling set (get_boxing_fighter, get_golf_player, get_snooker_darts_player), the MMA scope is distinguishable. It loses a point for fusing two functions (record retrieval and name-search) into one run-on sentence rather than stating a single clear purpose.

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 trailing 'Or find fighters by name' implies a two-step workflow (name to locate the id, id to pull the record), reinforced by the schema note on the name param. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no comparison against siblings like get_boxing_fighter. Usage is only implied, matching a 3.

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