nrl_fixture

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

The description adds that no authentication is needed and provides the full return shape, which goes beyond the annotations. It confirms read-only, idempotent behavior implicitly through 'full fixture + results' and the return specification. It doesn't disclose rate limits or other side effects, but the annotations already cover the safety profile.

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 one-sentence purpose, then tight usage, return format, example, and auth note. No wasted words.

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 simple single-parameter tool, the description covers purpose, input source, example, return format, and auth. The explicit return JSON compensates for the missing output schema.

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% and the schema already explains the competitionId source and requirement. The description adds an example value (12999) and the context that it's for a competition, but this is mostly redundant with the schema's description.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Full fixture + results for one competition' and lists the exact fields returned. It also differentiates from nrl_match by explicitly saying 'resolve the matchId for nrl_match,' making its role clear among siblings.

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?

It provides clear usage: 'Use it to list a round's games and to resolve the matchId for nrl_match.' It also explains where to obtain competitionId (from nrl_competitions / nrl_application_settings). However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or name other alternatives.

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