Get fight events

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond this: it warns about full pagination, time-window, event-count, page-count, and byte protections. These are useful behavioral safeguards that an agent should know before calling. No contradiction with 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 a single sentence and wastes no words. It front-loads the most important fact (compatibility alias for get_events) and then summarizes the protective features. It is concise, though the list of protections is somewhat dense and could benefit from explicit parameter references.

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?

This is a complex 17-parameter tool with no output schema and low schema coverage, so the description carries heavy responsibility. The one-sentence alias description is not enough for an agent to safely call the tool correctly. It omits parameter semantics, output behavior, and selection guidance, leaving too much to inference.

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?

With 17 parameters and only 41% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining the meaning of key parameters. It vaguely references pagination, time-window, event-count, page-count, and byte protections, but does not map these to actual parameters like cursor, maxEvents, maxPages, startTime, or maxPayloadBytes. Most parameters remain unexplained.

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 a compatibility alias for get_events, so an agent understands it retrieves event data. The name 'get_fight_events' adds the fight context, and naming get_events distinguishes it from other siblings. However, it does not explicitly state 'retrieves fight events' in plain terms, relying on the alias and name.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus get_events or any other sibling. It calls itself a compatibility alias, which is a weak reason for selection, but does not explain scenarios, exclusions, or advantages over alternatives.

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