get_fixture_counts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries behavioral disclosure. It reveals an important hidden behavior: the 'OLD' parking layer is excluded by default and can be included via include_old=True. This adds meaningful context beyond the basic counting operation.

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 compact, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. The default exclusion and include_old behavior are stated without unnecessary wording.

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 only two optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers the essential semantics and hidden default. It does not mention how layer values are specified or when to prefer sibling tools, but this is not required for a basic counts endpoint.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It does: 'layer' is described as optional scoping, and 'include_old' is explained with its default behavior and effect. This compensates well for the empty schema descriptions.

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 action ('Counts of each fixture type') and the optional scoping to one layer. It is specific enough to understand what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_fixture_summary.

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 clear context about the default exclusion of the 'OLD' parking layer and how to include it, which guides parameter use. However, it provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over sibling tools such as get_fixture_summary or get_fixture_details.

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