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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that history includes a multi-promotion career timeline, but it does not disclose other behaviors like pagination or rate limits. Since annotations cover the primary traits, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single sentence that efficiently packages purpose and parameter guidance. It is slightly dense but every clause adds value; no fluff or redundancy.

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?

The description specifies what is returned (bio, record, statistics, portraits) and how to extend the response with includes. It doesn't mention error handling or pagination limits beyond the history_limit parameter, but for a simple read-only tool it is reasonably complete.

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 fully documents all three parameters, but the description adds meaningful context by explaining what each include option returns (e.g., history gives a full multi-promotion timeline). This goes beyond the schema's generic 'Extra blocks' description.

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 resource ('one fighter'), and lists the data returned (bio, record, career statistics, portraits). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_fight and search_fighters by implying direct access via slug or id.

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 implies usage when you have a known fighter slug or id, which separates it from search tools. It also provides guidance on the include parameter to tailor the response, but it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like search_fighters or mention when not to use this tool.

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