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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting cursor-based pagination and that only identity fields are returned, which is not inferable from 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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and filters, followed by pagination and a pointer to get_fighter. No filler or redundant restatement 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?

Given the read-only annotations and the simple optional-parameter search surface, the description covers what the tool does, how results are paginated, what fields are returned, and where to go for more detail. The identity-fields statement is especially valuable since there is no output schema.

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 descriptions already cover q, org, and country, and the description's 'name, nationality or promotion' largely restates them. The only added parameter insight is 'cursor paginated', which lightly explains limit/cursor but does not fully compensate for the undocumented limit and cursor parameters at 60% schema coverage.

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 action ('Search the fighter roster') and explicit filters (name, nationality, promotion), distinguishing it from siblings like get_fighter for full records and the generic search tool. The scope is immediately clear.

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?

Description gives a clear routing rule: use this for identity-level roster searches and get_fighter for the full record. Cursor pagination also signals this is intended for list-style queries rather than single-record lookups.

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