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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the engine relies on rankings, Power Index, and form, and omits the website's Fight DNA factor, which explains why scores may differ. This goes beyond annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: what the board is, what it is not, and a caveat about score differences. It is slightly wordy but still focused and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

Given the simple parameter set and full schema coverage, the description gives enough conceptual context for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. There is no output schema, so a bit more detail about the returned structure could improve completeness, but the core behavior is clear.

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 the schema already documents org, limit, and division thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond 'per division or across the roster,' which aligns with division, but does not materially compensate for anything missing.

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 and resource: it returns the 'matchmaker board' — fights worth making, scored on explicit criteria. It also differentiates itself from booked-fight lists, which distinguishes it from siblings like find_fights.

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 establishes clear context: this is for hypothetical matchups within one promotion, per division or across the roster. It includes a negative boundary ('not a list of booked bouts') but stops short of naming alternative tools or explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use conditions.

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