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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the description's added value is real: it discloses the 'settled' filter (upcoming bouts excluded), newest-first ordering, and cursor pagination. That is substantive behavior beyond the annotation set, though pagination mechanics (where the cursor comes from) are left to the schema.

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 short sentences with zero waste: content and scope first, then paging. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 does the work of describing the row payload (both corners, result, event) and ordering, which is enough to call and consume the tool. Minor gap: it doesn't say what happens with an invalid slug or whether an empty result is possible.

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 all three params are already documented, including the referee slug source and the cursor's origin. The description's only contribution is 'Cursor paginated', which confirms paging behavior but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. 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: returns every settled bout a given referee worked, with the fields returned (corners, result, event) and the scope ('covered promotions'). It implicitly separates itself from get_referee/list_referees by returning fights rather than profile data, but never names a sibling explicitly.

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 only implied: 'one referee worked' signals a per-referee fight-history lookup, and the schema points to list_referees for slug discovery. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_referee, get_judge_scorecards, or find_fights, and no exclusions.

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