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

Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, closed-world safety profile, so the description's added value is the cost disclosure (2 credits) and the compliance guardrails, both of which the agent cannot infer from structured fields. It does not say what the response looks like when no book has posted a line, which is the main remaining behavioral gap.

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 use case, then the cost, then the guardrail. Every clause carries information the agent needs; 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, and the description covers the cost, defaults and compliance constraints. Completeness is slightly undercut by not specifying behavior when no moneyline is available for a bout or the N-days window crosses a league boundary.

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% – both parameters, including the 1-180 bounds and the mma/pfl/bellator enum, are fully documented in the schema. The description's restatement of the 'default 30' for days adds no syntax or constraint beyond what the schema already states, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

A specific verb-and-resource statement: every scheduled bout in the next N days with the current moneyline from any book. It reads clearly as a forward-looking schedule+price read, distinct from siblings like get_event (single event), get_odds (pricing focus) and get_fighter_fights (historical).

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?

Explicitly scopes usage to 'upcoming fights' and sets a hard behavioral boundary on what must not be done with the prices (no stake/payout math, no bet recommendations, no sportsbook referrals). It stops short of naming a sibling alternative for looking up a single event or historical odds, so routing to alternatives is left implicit.

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