ufc_athlete

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

With readOnly/idempotent annotations already present, the description adds substantial behavioral context: statistics are in `included` rather than on the athlete, heights/weights/reaches are inches/pounds as decimal strings, and no auth is needed. The example response makes the return shape concrete, and nothing contradicts 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then uses a structured return example, unit clarification, auth note, and a reference to a sibling tool. Every sentence earns its place, and the JSON example improves clarity without excessive verbosity.

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?

No output schema is provided, but the description compensates by detailing the full response shape, where statistics and rankings live, the units, and an example. It also covers auth and points to ufc_athlete_stats for the full field list, making invocation unambiguous.

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 for parameters is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's example duplicates the schema's `title` example and does not introduce additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already documents, such as the `include` warning.

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 first sentence clearly specifies the tool returns one fighter with full career statistics and current ranking attached. Calling it "The main athlete tool" and explicitly noting that statistics live in `included` distinguishes it from sibling tools like ufc_athlete_stats and ufc_rankings.

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 instructs that `title` must be an exact fighter name "from ufc_search_athletes", establishing a clear prerequisite and workflow. It also references ufc_athlete_stats for the full field list, providing an alternative, though it does not explicitly state exclusions or when not to use this tool.

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