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

Annotations already indicate a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds substantial behavioral context: the tally is 'on file' and NOT a career record, disputed bouts remain in the list, the grade is returned separately and never added to the tally, and results are exactly as published by commissions. It also discloses rate limiting without contradicting any annotation.

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 long but information-dense, front-loading the core purpose before caveats. Every sentence adds necessary context around statuses, tally semantics, citation requirements, and rate limits; it could be slightly tighter, but it earns its length.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of explaining return values. It covers bout details, tally semantics, record statuses, canonicalUrl, citeAs, and rate limits — enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and interpret results without further documentation.

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 coverage is 100%, with the 'slug' parameter already described as the last part of the canonical URL. The description reinforces this with the pxl8.io/<slug> pattern but does not add meaningful new param semantics 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 states a specific verb and resource: fetching 'the verified record for one fighter page'. It clearly scopes the tool to a single fighter's record, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_event_card, and includes the exact URL pattern.

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 use — it is the free lookup tier for a fighter's verified record, with rate limits and mention of higher-limit partner access. It does not explicitly name alternatives like find_fighter or get_event_card, but it provides enough context for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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