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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing the meta.quality flags (rounds present, position data present, round sums matching totals), which tell the agent how to interpret incomplete data. It does not mention error behavior for invalid or missing fight ids.

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, front-loaded with the resource and scope, then the return payload and quality flags. The long parenthetical list is information-dense rather than wasteful, though it reads as a run-on.

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 must carry return-value semantics, and it does so thoroughly by enumerating stat categories, fantasy point breakdowns, and quality flags. Only the response envelope shape and failure modes remain unspecified, which is a minor gap for a read-only lookup.

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 the single fight_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including integer-or-numeric-string handling. The description only reiterates 'one bout', adding no format or sourcing 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+resource: per-fight totals for both corners of one bout, enumerating the stat categories returned. It is clearly distinguishable from aggregate/stats siblings like get_year_stats or compare_fighters, though it doesn't name a nearest alternative such as get_fight or get_event_card.

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?

Usage is implied by 'one bout' and the required fight_id, so an agent can infer it is the drill-down call after an event card. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_fight or get_event_card, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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