yahoo_sports_mma_fight_card

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden, and it does so well. It discloses that calls take no parameters, that the endpoint is non-configurable and always returns the currently featured event, that the data comes from Yahoo Sports' server-rendered MMA schedule page, and that it returns typical UFC fight-card data. This is good coverage of behavior without any structured annotation to lean on.

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?

Three sentences with zero waste. The opening sentence establishes the tool and its payload, the second identifies the data source, and the third concludes with the critical constraint. The behavioral limitation is placed at the end for natural reading flow, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the lack of annotations, the absence of an output schema, and a zero-parameter surface, the description is complete: it specifies the resource, the payload fields, the data source, and the single caveat of caller flexibility. There is nothing an agent needs to know about the endpoint that is missing from the description.

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?

With zero parameters, the baseline is 4. The description goes further and explains why there are no parameters — the endpoint intentionally always returns the current/next event, so callers do not need to pass or select an event ID. This adds meaning beyond the empty schema, which simply defines no properties.

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 begins with a direct, specific statement: 'Returns the current/next UFC event's full fight card', and then enumerates the exact fields included (fighters, records, rankings, weight class, card position). It distinguishes the resource from a schedule tool by clearly stating this is about a fight card, and the final sentence clarifies it is event-fixed rather than caller-selected, sets it apart from any event-selection sibling.

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 clearly states the context of when this endpoint should be used: when the current/next featured UFC event's card is needed. The closing sentence 'whichever event Yahoo currently features as next, not a caller-selected one' effectively excludes use cases requiring a specific user-chosen event, though it does not explicitly name an alternative sibling tool to switch to for that case.

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