ufc_round_records

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: the return shape with `combined` flag semantics, the warning that `filter[round]` and `filter[statname]` return 0 rows instead of errors, the fact that `value` is a string, and that no auth is needed. This goes far 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 reasonably concise for the amount of information it conveys. It is well-structured with Returns, Warning, Example, and Auth sections. The warning and example are directly useful. A slight deduction for some verbosity, but every section 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 output schema, the description compensates by fully explaining the return structure, the meaning of `combined`, the statname enumeration, round range, and the filter limitation. It includes an example and auth info, making it complete for an agent to use 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% for sort, limit, and offset, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful semantics by warning that filtering params don't work server-side, advising to request a full page and narrow manually, and explaining that sorting works. This adds value beyond the schema.

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 single-round record book' with specific stats (significant strikes, total strikes, takedowns, submission attempts) and explicitly says it is ranked. This is a specific verb+resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like ufc_fights or ufc_athlete_stats.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (to retrieve single-round records) and gives practical guidance on filtering, combined totals, and resolving IDs via ufc_search_athletes. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternative tools, but the purpose is distinct enough that the usage context is clear.

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