apisports_mma_fights

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses valuable behavioral traits: the winner field being null until resulted, both fighters possibly false on a draw/no-contest, and the unverified nature of the return shape from vendor docs. It also clearly states the auth key requirement, adding practical context beyond 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 well-structured with labeled sections (Returns, NOTE, Example, Auth) and includes only relevant caveats. It is not overly verbose, though the example card is minimal and could be slightly more illustrative.

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 absence of an output schema, the description compensates by providing the return shape and important caveats about its reliability. It also mentions auth. However, it does not address potential interactions between the four optional parameters or pagination/limitations, so it is not fully complete.

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 each parameter is already well-documented. The description adds only a minimal usage example (date string) but no deeper parameter semantics or nuances, so a baseline score 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 tool as retrieving MMA fights (UFC and others) by date or season, which is specific enough. However, it lacks an explicit action verb (e.g., 'list' or 'get'), and it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, though the MMA resource is unique among siblings.

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 implies use for MMA fight queries when filtering by date or season, but it does not mention alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios. It also does not explain how multiple parameters interact (e.g., whether id and date can be combined). The auth requirement is mentioned, but that is a prerequisite, not a usage guideline.

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