pl_team_next_fixture

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the 404 error behavior for off-season, the exact return fields, and that no authentication is needed. These are valuable behavioral traits not covered by annotations and improve the agent's ability to handle responses correctly.

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 efficiently structured with a one-sentence purpose, a return shape line, and an auth note. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy, making it easy to parse.

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 fixture lookup with three clear parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the 404 edge case, the response shape, and auth requirements. It is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool returns and how to handle errors.

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 schema already documents all three required parameters with descriptions and notes they are path parameters (100% schema description coverage). The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 returns a team's next scheduled fixture, which is a specific verb+resource combination. This distinguishes it from siblings like pl_matches (all fixtures) and pl_match (a specific match), especially with the 404 note for no scheduled fixture.

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 clear context: it returns the next scheduled fixture for a team, with a 404 when none is scheduled (e.g., off-season). It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the context is sufficient to infer when to use it. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance.

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