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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations, the description adds useful behavioral context: rankings appear only when the promotion publishes them, and the roster is ordered by recency. It also clarifies that bouts, results, and roster are included in one response, though it does not describe response structure or pagination.

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 description is two sentences, front-loads the core scope, and then compactly lists the returned components. Every phrase earns its place, and the closing sentence usefully frames the tool as the one-call division-page answer.

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?

For a simple read-only getter with two enum-constrained parameters, the description tells the caller what content to expect and in what general shape. Without an output schema, a slightly more explicit statement about response structure or ordering would make it fully complete, but nothing essential for invoking it is missing.

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?

Both parameters already have full schema descriptions and enums, so the schema carries most of the semantic weight. The description adds only the conceptual framing of “one promotion” and “one weight class,” which reinforces the params but provides no new syntax or constraints.

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 clearly identifies the resource as a single promotion/weight-class division page and enumerates its contents: rankings, upcoming bouts, recent results, and active roster. It is easy to distinguish from granular tools like get_rankings or get_fight, though it lacks an explicit verb in the body and relies on the title for the action.

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 “The division-page answer in one call” implies this is the aggregate endpoint for a division overview, and the enumerated components suggest when it should be used. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative tool.

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