nrl_fixture

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It describes the return data structure and fields, implying safe read-only behavior. However, it does not explicitly state permissions, rate limits, or guarantee of completeness.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage, then an example. Every sentence adds value; no fluff.

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 1-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers core functionality (returns matches with specific fields). However, it omits details like pagination, ordering, or data range limits, which could be important for completeness.

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 sole parameter competitionId is not elaborated in the description. With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. Agent does not know how to find competitionId values or valid ranges.

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 it returns full fixture and results for one competition, listing each match with detailed fields. It gives a specific use case (list round games, resolve matchId). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like nrl_match, though the sibling list is large.

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 says 'Use it to list a round's games and to resolve the matchId for nrl_match', providing clear context for when to use. No exclusions or alternatives mentioned, but the guidance is direct.

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