supercoach_real_fixture

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

With no annotations, the description transparently discloses all behavioral traits: the exact data returned (detailed field list), scope per call, pagination method, and an estimate of rows (AFL ≈207). No contradictions.

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 information-dense but slightly long. It front-loads the core purpose and data fields, then adds pagination notes and example. Every sentence adds value, but could be slightly more concise without losing clarity.

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 there is no output schema, the description provides a comprehensive list of returned fields, explains pagination, and gives an example. It sufficiently covers what the agent needs to know about the tool's behavior and output.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains the key parameters round (optional vs omit) and pagination parameters. It adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying data volume and usage pattern. The mode parameter is not covered, but overall provides enough semantic context.

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 it provides fixtures for one game+season, listing all data fields including scores and head-to-head bookmaker odds. The example with AFL round-16 concretely ties the tool to a sport and fantasy context, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 gives practical usage guidance: pass round for one round, omit for whole season, pagination. However, it does not address when to use this tool versus alternative tools for similar data (e.g., nrl_fixture), leaving the agent to infer from the tool name.

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