Next fixture for a team

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds that the tool is 'instant and offline' and 'answered from the bundled schedule, no network,' which provides useful behavioral context beyond annotations. It does not contradict 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 extremely concise—two sentences that front-load the core purpose and essential usage hint. No wasted words.

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 the simple tool with no output schema, the description covers key aspects: what it does, how to specify the team, and performance characteristics. It could mention that the team must exist in the bundled schedule, but overall is sufficient for a low-complexity 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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning: it emphasizes the 3-letter code format (already in schema) and repeats the timezone/locale/flavor parameters via examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already documents parameters well.

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 tool returns "a team's next scheduled match" using a 3-letter code. The verb 'get' and resource 'next fixture' are explicit. It differentiates from siblings by specifying it's for a single team's next match, offline and instant.

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 usage guidance: use a 3-letter code and mentions instant/offline capability. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like get_live or get_match, nor does it exclude incorrect usage (e.g., for past matches).

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