apisports_football_fixtures

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent. The description adds important context: authentication requirement ('needs your own key in API_SPORTS_KEY'), the unverified nature of the payload shape, and the domain nuance that `goals` is the 90-minute score while `score.penalty` decides shootouts. 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 well-structured and information-dense: purpose, return shape, caveat, example, and auth note. Each section earns its place, and the caveat about unverified vendor docs is crucial transparency.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description compensates with a detailed return shape and key semantics (penalty vs goals). It also explains the approximate nature of the shape. However, it does not mention combination rules (e.g., season required with league/team) or pagination, though the schema covers the season requirement.

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 covers all 9 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by requiring 'at least one filter' (since all params are optional in schema) and provides a concrete example using the `date` parameter.

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 states 'Football fixtures and results by date, league or team', providing a specific resource and scope. It differentiates from sibling tools like apisports_football_leagues and apisports_football_standings by focusing on fixtures/results.

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 explicitly instructs 'Give at least one filter', which is a key usage constraint. The example shows a valid date filter call. It does not explicitly compare with alternatives, but the filter guidance is clear and actionable.

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