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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations, it discloses source scope ('commission records only'), ordering ('newest first'), output contents (all judge cards plus the dissenting judge), and epistemic stance ('Facts as filed; UFCalendar adds no verdict of its own'). No contradiction 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core resource, then filters, then output details and caveat. No filler; every clause adds information.

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 supplies the essentials: what records are returned, their order, their source, and the no-verdict caveat. The input schema covers parameter mechanics, and annotations cover safety, so the combined definition is sufficient for an agent to invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates date-range and promotion-or-all filtering already expressed in the schema; it adds no new meaning for limit, cursor, from, to, or org beyond their labels. It connects the params to the tool's intent but does not lift above baseline.

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?

Description names a specific resource ('completed bouts decided on split or majority cards') and states the output shape ('every judge's official card and the dissenting judge named'). The commission-records-only qualifier plus 'no verdict of its own' distinguishes it from broader event/fight listing and editorial tools.

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 clear context for invocation: only completed split/majority bouts, commission records, optional promotion or date range. It doesn't name sibling alternatives (e.g., find_fights, get_judge_scorecards) or state when not to use it, so it misses the explicit when-not/alternatives level.

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