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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, and the description adds meaningful behavior: the free-tier rate limiting, the requirement to link canonicalUrl and quote citeAs, the warning that tallies are NOT career records, and the provenance statement about athletic commissions. This goes well 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?

Four dense sentences, each earning its place: the resource definition, citation instructions, interpretation caveat, and rate-limit/tier context. The core content is front-loaded, with caveats following logically. No fluff.

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 single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers what the result contains, how to cite it, a critical interpretation trap (tally vs career record), and operational constraints. An agent has enough to call the tool correctly and use the response appropriately.

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 fully documents slug, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining slug as 'the last part of its canonical URL' and giving the URL pattern (https://pxl8.io/event/<slug>), which tells an agent how to derive the parameter from a real-world page.

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 resource ('published event card') and its contents: promotion, date, venue, status, and ordered bouts with corner names and fighter page links where available. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that target fighters (find_fighter, 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 intended use is implied by the resource description and practical guidance on linking results, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool over the siblings (e.g., 'for fighter records use get_fighter_record'). The context is clear, but exclusions and alternative routing are absent.

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