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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses cost (5 credits), data-availability caveats (UFC-only fields and null elsewhere), a temporal limit on moneylines (2024 onward), and explicit prohibitions on computing stakes or recommending bets. Those are exactly the operational and policy facts an agent cannot infer 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?

The purpose is front-loaded and the cost and policy constraints are short, standalone sentences. The middle enumeration is dense but each item conveys a distinct returned field or caveat, so almost nothing is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, yet the description still adds availability caveats, cost, and usage policy. For a paid, policy-sensitive read tool, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly and within bounds.

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%, and the descriptions already explain bout_id's origin and league's default and enum. The tool description adds no further parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable at full coverage but not value-adding.

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 opens with a specific verb-and-resource statement ('everything about one fight') and then enumerates the exact contents: result, stat sheets, round lines, ratings, and moneylines. That detail makes it unmistakably the single-fight tool, distinct from get_event or get_fighter_fights.

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 says explicitly to use this for 'everything about one fight' and points the agent to get_event and get_fighter_fights as sources for the required bout_id. It does not name a situation where another tool should be preferred instead, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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