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

Annotations already flag this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive call, so the description doesn't need to restate that. It adds real behavioral detail: default date scope (upcoming), default ordering (soonest first), archive mode via order=desc, and cursor pagination. This goes well beyond the annotation hints without contradicting them.

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 carrying distinct information: purpose, default behavior/order toggle, and pagination. No filler or repetition of the title.

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 seven optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main operational decisions an agent needs: defaults, filtering dimensions, ordering, and pagination. It doesn't describe the response object shape, but the schema's cursor description already points to meta.pagination.next_cursor, and the readOnly/idempotent annotations handle the safety profile.

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 86% and the baseline for that is 3. The description adds operational meaning by grouping parameters (promotion, status, date range), explaining that order=desc flips from upcoming to archive, and confirming cursor as the pagination mechanism – value not explicit in each parameter's 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 names a precise operation: listing fight cards, and specifies the key filter dimensions (promotion, status, date range). It clearly reads as a collection/list operation, distinguishing it from single-card tools like get_event_card without ambiguity.

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?

It gives concrete how-to context: a bare call for upcoming schedule, order=desc for archive, and cursor pagination. However, it never says when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_event_card, and provides no explicit exclusions or conditional routing.

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