sportmonks_fixtures_by_date

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent hints, but the description adds substantial context: the exact response shape, the behavior of the `include` parameter (without it, no teams/scores), the structure of `scores` (list of period scores requiring selection of CURRENT), the authentication requirement, and a clear warning that the shape is unverified from vendor docs. This goes well beyond the structured hints and provides critical operational context.

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 longer than the ideal one-liner but every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, include warning, response shape, caveat, example, and auth. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured with line breaks for readability. The caveat and shape details add necessary length for a tool with no output schema.

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 carries the burden of explaining return values — and it does so thoroughly, including the exact data structure, how to interpret `scores`, the unverified-shape warning, an example call, and auth requirements. The pagination field is mentioned, and the tool's simplicity (one date, three params) means this is comprehensive for an agent to use correctly.

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% for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by warning that omitting `include` results in IDs only, and by explaining the nested `scores` structure and how to extract the live/final score. It reinforces the meaning of `include` and `date` with a concrete example. The `per_page` parameter is not further elaborated, but the schema already describes it as 'Page size.'

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 opens with 'Fixtures on one date,' which clearly states the tool's function: retrieving sports fixtures for a single date. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sportmonks_fixture (likely a single fixture) and sportmonks_livescores by specifying the date-scoped query. The additional note about the `include` parameter clarifies what the tool returns by default.

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 usage instructions: it tells the user to add `include=participants;scores` to avoid getting bare IDs, and includes a concrete example. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives like `sportmonks_fixture` or `sportmonks_livescores`, so it lacks explicit exclusionary guidance.

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