get_fixtures

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful value beyond that by specifying the shape of the returned records (local kickoff ISO dates, gameweek numbers, home/away pairings) in the absence of an output schema, though it says nothing about season scope or ordering.

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?

Two dense sentences with zero filler: the listing scope and returned fields come first, followed by the filter options. Nothing is repeated and nothing is wasted.

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, fully annotated two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, filterable dimensions, and returned fields adequately. Minor gaps remain around whether only the current season is covered, whether past fixtures are included, and any result ordering.

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%, so both parameters and their examples are already documented in structured data. The description's only addition is that filters can be combined ('and/or'), which is a small but real clarification beyond the schema; 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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List Premier League matchday calendar fixtures') and enumerates the data returned (kickoff ISO dates, gameweek numbers, home/away pairings). It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like get_fixture_difficulty or get_match_preview, though it never names them explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer it lists fixtures for a gameweek and/or club. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives such as get_fixture_difficulty or get_match_preview when richer per-match context is needed.

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