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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it runs without the Fight DNA/style-clash factor, so scores may differ from ufcalendar.com, and it includes the already-booked bout when one exists. This goes beyond the structured data without contradicting it.

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?

The description is two tight sentences with no filler. The core purpose and output are front-loaded, and the caveat about Fight DNA is placed after the main content, where it adds context without obscuring the primary function.

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 read-only two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately enumerates the key return elements: recommended opponents, model win probabilities, the score behind each pairing, and the booked bout if present. Combined with full schema coverage and clear annotations, this is enough for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% for both fighter and limit, so the schema already documents the parameters. The description confirms that fighter is the subject of the recommendation but adds no extra detail about the limit parameter or slug/id formats, keeping this at the 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?

The description clearly identifies the tool's purpose: given one fighter, return the most sensible next opponents from UFCalendar's matchmaker, with win probabilities and the existing booked bout. It is specific enough to distinguish from general fight search and fighter-profile tools, though it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling 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?

The phrase 'For one fighter' implies this tool is for single-fighter next-opponent recommendations, and the matchmaker context suggests when it would be relevant. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like find_fights, get_fighter, or compare_fighters, nor does it give exclusions.

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