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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing what the page contains (status, viewers, host, active break/lot, full break/lot list), which helps an agent decide whether this call answers its question. It stops short of noting auth requirements, rate limits, or pagination behavior.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the resource/scope front-loaded and the routing alternatives in the second sentence. Every clause 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?

For a single-parameter, read-only fetch with an output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: what it returns, how to obtain the id, and how it differs from the browse/shop/channel siblings. Nothing material is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single id parameter, and the schema itself explains the id comes from a browse result's id field. The description only says 'by id' without adding format or provenance detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('one Fanatics Live show page by id') and enumerates the payload fields (status, viewers, host, active break/lot, break/lot list). It names the sibling tools it is not (fanaticslive_browse, fanaticslive_shop_shows, fanaticslive_channel), so an agent can distinguish it without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly routes to alternatives with the selecting condition: browse for live/upcoming shows, shop_shows for a shop, channel for a channel. This is a clear when-to-use map rather than implied guidance.

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