Next fixture for a team

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

The description adds significant behavioral details beyond the annotations: it discloses that the tool fetches live data ('live-resolved'), reads from a live overlay, and has a fallback to a bundled schedule. This complements the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations effectively.

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 sentences: the first concisely states purpose and behavior, the second provides a usage example and fallback note. No wasted words, front-loaded with the most critical information.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description covers all necessary aspects: data source, usage, fallback behavior, and parameter conventions. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand and use the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds minor value by giving examples for the team parameter (e.g., MEX, BRA) and hinting at the flavor parameter's purpose, but it does not substantially enhance understanding beyond 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?

The description clearly states that it retrieves a team's next match, specifying the distinction between knockout ties (from live overlay) and group fixtures (from bundled schedule). This differentiates it from sibling tools like get_bracket or get_live, providing a specific verb and resource.

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 explicit usage guidance: use a 3-letter team code (e.g., MEX, BRA, USA) and mentions fallback behavior if the provider is unreachable. While it does not explicitly list when not to use this tool, the context is clear enough for an agent to choose appropriately.

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