ufc_rankings

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

The description discloses behavioral quirks beyond the annotations: the unfilterable nature verified by the tool creator, the ~200-row set requiring pagination, and the meaning of fields like category and previous rank movement. This goes well beyond readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint.

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 well-organized into compact sections: summary, Returns, WARNING, Example, Auth. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy with the schema or annotations.

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 listing return fields and their semantics, explaining category and rank movement, and describing the resolution path to names. It also covers limitations, alternatives, pagination, and auth status, making it fully self-contained.

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% with descriptive parameter docs for sort, limit, and offset. The description adds an example ({"limit": 50}) and implies paging behavior, but does not materially expand on the schema's already clear 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 opens with 'Divisional rankings, including pound-for-pound, with each fighter's previous position', giving a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from related tools like ufc_athlete and ufc_search_athletes by referencing them as alternatives for different needs.

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 warns that the collection CANNOT be filtered, noting that `filter[fightmetric_id]` returns 0 rows rather than an error, and instructs to page the whole set and match client-side. It names ufc_athlete as the alternative for a single fighter's current ranking, providing clear when-to-use guidance.

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