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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds substantial behavioral context: it clarifies that bout counts are not career records, states that results are as published by athletic commissions/federations, discloses rate limits and auth requirements, and lists output attributes like canonicalUrl and citeAs. This gives the agent a clear picture of what to expect without contradicting the 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 moderately long but each sentence contributes value: it front-loads the core resource definition, then adds output details, a caveat about bout counts, data provenance, and access tier info. It is well-structured with no filler, though it could be slightly tighter by merging related sentences.

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 simple lookup tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is thorough: it enumerates the return fields, clarifies data semantics, mentions authentication and rate limits, and sets expectations about the source. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call this tool and interpret its result is missing.

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 input schema already fully describes the single slug parameter with its meaning and format. The description adds a URL template (https://pxl8.io/event/<slug>) which reinforces the schema but does not significantly expand its meaning. Given 100% schema coverage, 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 clearly identifies the resource as a published event card and enumerates its contents: promotion, date, venue, status, and bouts with corner names and fighter pages. The URL pattern and specific field list make it unambiguous what this tool returns, and the resource type is distinct from siblings like get_fighter_record or find_subject.

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 provides contextual information about the access tier (no key required, rate-limited) and mentions that keyed partner access exists, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or give conditions for exclusion. It implies usage for event card lookups but does not reference any sibling tool by name.

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