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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: results are only included 'when the card has been fought', and it specifies what the response contains. This is important because no output schema exists.

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 front-loaded sentence that names the operation, identification method, and complete returned content without any fluff. Every clause contributes meaning.

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 one-parameter, read-only fetch with no output schema, this description is sufficient: it tells the agent how to identify the event and what to expect in the response, including the conditional results. The annotations cover safety, and no critical invocation detail 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?

The schema has 100% description coverage for the sole parameter 'event', explaining it as 'Event slug (preferred) or numeric id.' The tool description repeats 'by slug or id' in prose but adds no new syntax, constraints, or examples beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is 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?

The description states a specific verb, 'Fetch', and a specific resource, 'one event', then enumerates the payload: complete bout order, both corners, venue, broadcast listings, and results. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like list_events (multiple events) and get_fight (individual fight) by emphasizing the full-card scope.

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 description clearly implies this tool is for retrieving a single event's full card by slug or id. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, such as preferring list_events for browsing or get_fight for a single bout. The context is clear, but exclusion conditions are absent.

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