fpl_fixtures

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description explains key behavioral nuances: stats are empty until the match is played, difficulty ratings are per side, finished_provisional precedes finished with non-final bonus points, and auth behavior is disclosed. This is rich, non-redundant context.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then provides a structured return shape, a concrete example, and auth note. Every sentence earns its place, with no filler or redundancy.

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 carries the full burden of explaining the return value, lifecycle states, and auth. It does so completely enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 already covers both parameters with 100% description coverage. The description's example reinforces event filtering but does not add material semantic meaning 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 opening sentence precisely identifies the resource: 'Fixtures with FPL difficulty ratings, and goal/assist/bonus breakdowns once played.' The example and return-shape detail make it unambiguous that this is the FPL fixture tool, distinguishing it from siblings like fpl_gameweeks and fpl_player_detail.

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 makes the use case clear via the resource, the 'Example: One gameweek's fixtures {"event":1}' snippet, and schema hints for filtering. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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