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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds important context: a 5-credit cost, UFC-only takedown data, and compliance constraints around betting and market information. These are meaningful behavioral details beyond the structured 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?

The description is front-loaded with the primary use case, followed by return-field detail, cost, and compliance constraints. Every sentence carries useful information and there is no redundant filler.

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 presence of an output schema, full annotation coverage, and a fully documented input schema, the description provides enough additional context about scope, cost, and usage restrictions for an agent to call 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%, so the schema already documents fighter_id, limit, offset, and league. The description does not add parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource: retrieving a fighter's full fight history in the promotion. It also enumerates the returned fields, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_fighter or get_fight.

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 'Use for a fighter's full history' gives clear usage context, and the schema points to search_fighters for obtaining fighter_id. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives such as get_fighter or get_fight or state when not to use this tool.

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