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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds valuable specifics: the 'next' definition (soonest not finished), the skip_series default behavior with specific series names, and that include_card adds bout list in the same metered call (cost implication). No contradiction, and it enriches beyond the 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?

Two sentences. The first defines the core function and scoping; the second explains the UFC-specific exception and the optional flag. Efficient, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every detail is relevant. No fluff.

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 no output schema, the description explains what changes with include_card (bout order, venue, broadcasts) and clarifies the default behavior of skip_series. The sibling list includes get_event_card which it references. This gives an agent all it needs to call correctly without further lookups.

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 covers all three parameters at 100%. The description clarifies the behavior of skip_series (which series are skipped and when) and include_card (returns full bout order, venue, broadcasts). While org is clear in schema, the description specifies omitting it for cross-promotion. This adds meaning beyond the schema descriptions.

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 states the tool returns the single next upcoming card (soonest unfinished event), with an optional scope (one promotion or all). It explicitly distinguishes from siblings like get_event_card (full bout list) and list_events (listing multiple events), making it unambiguous which tool to use.

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 provides explicit conditions: when to omit org (across all promotions), how to handle UFC developmental series (skip by default, include with skip_series=false), and when to use include_card for the full bout list. It also implicitly tells when not to use this tool—when you need a specific event or list, use alternatives like get_event_card or list_events.

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