supercoach_real_fixture

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

With readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description adds useful behavioral context: the return shape (array of fixture objects), approximate season size (AFL ~207 rows), pagination behavior, and the fact that no auth is needed. This goes beyond the annotations.

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 well-structured with a purpose statement, usage notes, return field list, example, and auth note. It's a bit longer than minimal, but every section adds value for an agent.

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 no output schema, the description provides a detailed field list and example, covering the main behaviors. It lacks explicit statements about sorting or error cases, but overall it gives enough context for selecting and invoking the tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minor value by noting the AFL season size for pagination and showing an example, but parameter meanings are already fully covered in the schema.

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?

Clearly states it returns fixtures for a SuperCoach game+season, including kickoff, teams, venue, scores, live status, and head-to-head odds. The example with sport/year/round and the detailed field list distinguish it from sibling fixture tools.

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?

Explains the round parameter (pass for one round, omit for full season), pagination, and provides an example. It doesn't name alternative tools or give when-not-to-use, but the context makes the intended use clear.

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