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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses meaningful behavior: max 5 candidates, bout counts are not career records, results are as published by commissions, and every result includes canonicalUrl and citeAs. It also exposes rate-limit characteristics. No contradiction with 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 core purpose and is information-dense. It is slightly repetitive about canonical URLs and bouts on file, but each sentence contributes meaningful operational detail.

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 lookup tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains return contents, attribution, data source, validation, and rate-limit context. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly and interpret results.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by imposing a minimum name length of 3 characters (schema only says minLength 1) and by clarifying the optional role of place and discipline for narrowing matches.

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 uses a specific verb ('Resolve ... to candidate fighter pages') and names the resource (fighter pages on pxl8.io), the optional qualifiers (place, discipline), and the output shape (up to 5 candidates, confidence band, URL, slug). It clearly distinguishes this as the name-resolution lookup tier from sibling tools like get_fighter_record.

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 description gives clear context: this is the no-key lookup tier, rate-limited per client and in total, with keyed partner access mentioned as a higher-limit alternative. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use them, so it falls short of a 5.

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