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

The annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent behavior, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses the at-most-5 result cap, confidence bands, canonical URL/citeAs attribution requirements, the crucial caveat that bout counts are not career records, data provenance, and rate limits. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

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?

Every sentence adds a needed fact: core resolution, output shape, follow-up instruction, validation floor, attribution rule, semantic warning, data provenance, and limits. The action is front-loaded and there is no 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values and constraints, and it does so thoroughly: candidate limit, per-candidate fields, canonical URL/citeAs usage, the tally-vs-record caveat, data source, and rate limits. Only minor details such as empty-result handling are left out.

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?

The schema already documents all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by stating the effective minimum name length (3 characters, stricter than the schema's minLength 1) and by paraphrasing place/discipline in natural language, but it does not add examples or formats.

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 action ('Resolve a fighter's name ... to candidate fighter pages') and enumerates what a result contains, which distinguishes it from the sibling tools. It names the output resource (pxl8.io candidate pages) and the optional filters.

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 spells out the follow-up call ('then call get_fighter_record with the chosen slug') and gives context such as rate limits and partner access. It does not explicitly say when not to use it versus get_event_card, but the intended workflow is clear enough.

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