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

The annotations establish that the call is read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds no behavioral context beyond those structured fields, such as lookup-failure behavior, data freshness, or response-expansion implications.

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 four-word description is direct, front-loaded, and free of filler. Its brevity conveys the essential lookup operation efficiently, with broader omissions assessed separately.

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?

For a simple three-parameter read, the description is minimally sufficient when combined with the schema and annotations. With no output schema and no sibling-routing guidance, it would be more complete if it indicated what a fixture contains or when to choose get_fixtures or search.

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 description confirms that id is the lookup key but adds no further parameter detail. The schema already documents include and user_request and supplies a pattern for id, so structured fields provide most of the parameter semantics at 67% description coverage.

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?

“One fixture by id” clearly communicates retrieval of a single fixture using its identifier, consistent with the title “One game.” It does not explicitly differentiate the tool from siblings such as get_fixtures or search.

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 wording implies that the tool is appropriate when the caller already knows a fixture ID and wants that specific game. It gives no explicit guidance about when to use get_fixtures, search, or another sibling instead.

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