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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it exposes that the result includes per-org capability flags and that odds are a consensus line presented for information, not betting advice. This meaningfully helps an agent interpret the output.

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 with no filler. The first sentence states the action and scope, the second adds a necessary caveat about odds. Every sentence earns its place and the key information is front-loaded.

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 parameterless, read-only list tool with strong annotations, the description is complete: it names the resource, the scope, and the nature of the returned data. No output schema exists, but the description provides enough of the return shape for an agent to call and interpret the tool correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameter dimension is trivially satisfied. The description adds value by indicating what the returned data will contain (capability flags such as stats, rounds, rankings, and odds), which is useful context even though there are no parameters to document.

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 ('promotions the UFCalendar Fight API covers') and adds the per-org capability-flag detail, so an agent can tell it is an enumeration tool rather than a single-resource lookup like get_org. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_org, and the tool name 'list_orgs' slightly mismatches the title/description using 'promotions'.

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 implies usage: use this tool when you need to know which promotions the API covers and what capabilities each has. It does not explicitly say when to prefer it over get_org or other list tools, nor does it state any exclusions, so the guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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