List patched fixtures

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses that results are paginated and mentions the filter parameter, but it does not clarify permissions, rate limits, or whether the call is read-only (though 'List' strongly implies it). For a simple read-only listing this is adequate but not rich.

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 tightly written sentences with zero waste. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the pagination and filter guidance.

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?

The description tells what fields are returned and that paging exists, which partially substitutes for a missing output schema. But the offset parameter has no description in the schema or the description, leaving pagination semantics incomplete for an agent trying to page through results.

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 75%, so the schema already documents three of four parameters including defaults for fields and filter. The description restates the default field set and adds a filter example, but adds no semantics for offset, so it only marginally exceeds the schema baseline.

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 states a specific verb (List) and resource (fixtures in the patch) and enumerates the returned fields, making the tool's function clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similar sibling gma3_patch_list, so it falls short of the top score.

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?

It gives a concrete example for the filter parameter ('Fixture 1 Thru 50') and notes pagination, which implies usage context. However, it never says when to use this tool versus gma3_patch_list or other fixture/patch siblings, leaving the agent to infer the choice.

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