ufc_events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: 'Auth: none needed', the full response structure, and that the three card times each include a timezone offset. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 average but front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. The return example and example call are both useful and earn their place. The structure is logical: summary, return shape, usage example, auth note.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by providing a detailed return structure example. It explains the meaning of the three card times and timezone offsets. It does not mention pagination behavior beyond the links.next/self in the example, but the schema covers param details and annotations cover the read-only safety profile.

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 all 5 parameters are already described in the schema. The description's example call illustrates sort and limit usage but does not add meaning beyond the schema. It does clarify response fields like fight_card_time_early/prelims/main, but that is response semantics, not parameter semantics.

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 states it returns 'UFC events — past and upcoming — with per-segment card times, venue and location.' This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope, and the plural 'events' distinguishes it from the singular 'ufc_event_card' sibling tool.

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 an example usage ('The most recent events' with sort and limit) which implies when to use it, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. No exclusionary guidance or sibling tool comparisons are given.

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