isportsapi_football_schedule

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent hints, lowering the transparency burden. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explicitly warns the return shape is from vendor docs and unverified, clarifies matchTime is a UNIX timestamp, and notes that a provider API key is required. These details go beyond the annotations, though it doesn't discuss rate limits, pagination, or behavior when both params are omitted.

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 a clear summary, then includes structured sections for return shape, a caveat, an example, and auth. Each section earns its place: the caveat is important for trust, the example clarifies usage, and the auth note is essential. It's slightly verbose due to the cautionary note, but not bloated.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by giving the full return shape and flagging it as unverified, which is crucial for an agent. It also provides an example and auth context. Missing details include the default behavior when no date is supplied, pagination, timezone handling, and sort order, but for a simple date-based list tool, the description is reasonably complete.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both date ('YYYY-MM-DD.') and leagueId ('Restrict to one competition.'). The description adds an example for date and implies usage, but it doesn't provide additional meaning for leagueId beyond the schema. Since the schema already carries the parameter semantics, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'Football fixtures and results by date' which clearly identifies the verb (returns), resource (football fixtures/results), and scope (by date). This distinguishes it from siblings like isportsapi_football_live (live scores) and isportsapi_football_competitions (leagues), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 provides a concrete example ({"date": "2024-08-17"}) and mentions an optional leagueId in the schema, implying usage for date-based fixture/result lookup. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., live vs. scheduled results, or other providers), nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites (e.g., required date format is in schema, not fully elaborated).

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