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

Annotations already signal readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: statuses, disputed bouts remaining in the list, the separate grade list never added to the tally, the counting definition, canonicalUrl/citeAs, and source attribution. 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 dense but every sentence contributes essential behavioral or contextual information. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and subsequent sentences clarify exceptions, status semantics, counting caveats, and access tiers without 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?

For a one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it explains what is returned, how counts should be interpreted, the meaning of statuses, the source of results, and access/rate-limit context. An agent has enough information to call the tool correctly and interpret the result.

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 the schema already fully documents the single `slug` parameter. The description reinforces that the slug corresponds to a pxl8.io page URL and canonical URL, but it does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: it retrieves the verified fighter record for one fighter page, exactly as the public page states it. It also scopes the tool to a fighter page via slug and distinguishes it from broader search or event-card tools by emphasizing 'one fighter page' and 'verified 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 for when to use this tool: public, keyless lookup of a single fighter's verified record by slug. It also contrasts with keyed partner access by noting this tier needs no key and is rate-limited, but it does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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