pl_team_next_fixture

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does disclose key behaviors: returns 404 for off-season and specifies the return fields. It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but the described behavior is sufficient for basic use.

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 extremely concise with two focused sentences: one for purpose and one for return format and error case. No unnecessary words, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

Given three parameters and no output schema, the description fails to fully equip an agent. Parameter meanings are omitted, and return field types are not specified. The 404 handling is well-covered, but overall completeness is lacking.

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 description does not explain the meaning of any of the three parameters (cid, sid, tid). Schema description coverage is 0%, so the agent must guess from the parameter names alone. This is a critical gap.

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 the tool's purpose as retrieving a team's next scheduled fixture. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like pl_team (team info) and pl_matches (list of matches).

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 mentions the 404 when no fixture is scheduled, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives or any prerequisites. The usage context is only implied by the name and parameters.

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