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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is known. The description adds valuable behavioral context: cursor pagination, default ordering, the meaning of status=upcoming, and the include=headline enrichment including fight results. No contradictions with 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?

Four sentences, no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by default behavior, filtering options, and pagination note. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure flows logically from general to specific.

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?

For a 10-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers defaults, filtering, pagination, and inclusion semantics. It does not describe the event object structure, but that is arguably the schema's job; given the complexity, the description is comprehensive enough for an agent to call correctly. Minor gap: no mention of how limit interacts with pagination.

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 90% (limit lacks a description), so the schema carries most parameter meaning. The description adds value by clarifying defaults (bare call = upcoming soonest-first), the archive pattern (order=desc), and the effect of include=headline (brings main event and result). This goes beyond the schema's per-parameter 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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('fight cards') with explicit filtering dimensions (promotion, status, date range). It clearly differentiates from siblings like get_event_card (single event) and find_fights (fight-level search) by focusing on cards as the unit. The opening sentence is unambiguous.

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 clear in-tool usage patterns (bare call returns upcoming, order=desc for archive, include=headline for main event), but it never mentions when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_event_card or get_next_event. It implies its role as a list endpoint but does not explicitly contrast it with siblings.

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