yahoo_sports_mma_schedule

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the underlying source (Yahoo's server-rendered MMA schedule page) and the output shape (calendar events with name, date, and status), which is helpful context. However, it leaves unaddressed staleness/caching behavior, meaning of the returned status values, response format details, and implications of the word 'known' (potential incompleteness).

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 two sentences and front-loads the core purpose immediately, then adds the return shape, source, and then the scope and no-parameter information. Each sentence earns its place with minimal redundancy; the repeated mention of 'Yahoo's page' is a minor stylistic cost, not an informational waste.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is substantially complete: it names the output fields (name, date, status), identifies the source page, and prefaces the no-param scope. The only gap is that it does not detail what status values might look like or how frequently the schedule refreshes, but given the simple tool shape the core usage need is fully met.

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 tool takes zero parameters and the schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this by explicitly stating the endpoint 'takes no parameters' and provides an explanation (Yahoo's own page exposes nothing more from this URL).

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 uses a specific verb and resource — "Returns the known UFC event calendar (name, date, status)" — and explicitly scopes the tool as UFC-only, distinguishing it from other promotion/schedule endpoints. The specification that Yahoo's page does not expose Bellator, PFL, or ONE Championship further clarifies what this particular tool is and is not.

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 clear context — this tool only covers the UFC schedule exposed by Yahoo's page, with no parameters. It claims implied alternatives: anything outside the UFC calendar (e.g., other promotions) is out-of-scope, so an agent knows what not to use it for. However, it never points to an explicit sibling or filter condition.

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