ufc_fights

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description adds valuable behavioral details: the exact response shape, that fight_final_winner is null for upcoming/drawn bouts, and that no authentication is needed. The null-winner caveat is especially helpful for avoiding incorrect inferences.

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 compact and well-organized: a one-line purpose, a concise return example, a critical caveat, a usage example, and an auth note. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 showing a representative response structure, explaining the null winner edge case, providing a query example, and stating auth requirements. This is comprehensive for a list/fetch tool with five optional parameters.

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?

All five parameters are fully described in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds an example call ({"limit": 10}) and clarifies that the default include resolves both corners and the winner, providing practical context beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 opens with 'Individual bouts — both corners and the winner — back to UFC 1', which clearly states the resource (UFC bouts) and the scope (all historical fights). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ufc_events and ufc_event_card, which handle event-level data.

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 tool's domain is clearly implied: it is for individual fight bouts rather than events or athletes. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool. The example 'Recent bouts with fighters resolved' gives a concrete use case, but no exclusions are provided.

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