ufc_event_card

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

Annotations already establish read-only, open-world, idempotent behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond that: the response shape, that the fight card is in `included` and matched via `data[0].relationships.fights.data[].id`, and that 'nothing useful is inline'. It also notes no auth is needed. This goes beyond the structured 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 longer than necessary due to the detailed return structure example, but every piece is informative and logically organized: purpose, usage, return format, example, auth. There is minor redundancy with the schema (e.g., include description repeated), but overall it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

Without an output schema, the description provides a detailed breakdown of the return payload, including the critical note that fights live in `included`. It covers parameters, example, and auth, making it complete for an agent to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value with a concrete example ({"title": "UFC 330"}) and clarifies the include parameter's default behavior ('Leave as-is to get the bouts with both fighters resolved'), which reinforces the schema description but adds practical usage context.

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 'One event WITH its full fight card attached' which clearly defines the scope, and it explicitly differentiates from sibling tool ufc_events by saying 'Use this rather than ufc_events when you want the bouts.' This is a specific, resource-focused purpose.

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?

Directly names the alternative tool (ufc_events) and the condition for choosing this one ('when you want the bouts'). Also provides an example invocation with title, clarifying the main intended use case.

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