ufc_jsonapi_index

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

Annotations already declare read-only/idempotent behavior, and the description adds valuable context: the exact return structure (map of resource types to collection URLs), the count of 291 entries, the fact that auth is not needed, and a heuristic that most entries are non-sport CMS data. This goes meaningfully 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 dense but not bloated: purpose, return structure, use case, auth, and a caveat are all covered in four concise lines plus a compact example. Every sentence earns its place.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool returns, the structure of the response, when to use it, and authentication. It even warns about the mix of CMS plumbing vs. sport data. No notable gaps.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, which sets the baseline at 4. The description focuses on the response shape instead of parameters, which is appropriate since there is nothing to explain about inputs.

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 the JSON:API resource index for all 291 resource types ufc.com exposes, with the specific purpose of discovering surfaces not wrapped by the spec. It distinguishes itself from sibling UFC tools (events, athletes, rankings) by being the comprehensive index.

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?

It explicitly states when to use it: 'useful when you need something this provider does not expose,' and warns that most resources are CMS plumbing rather than sport data. It could name alternative UFC tools, but the context is clear enough.

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