List patched fixtures

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so reasonably: it opens with 'Read-only' (the key safety signal) and discloses pagination defaults/limits plus the non-obvious rule that fixtures lacking a numeric FID are dropped when a range is supplied. It does not cover error behavior or unsorted-result caveats, but the essential traits are present.

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?

Dense and front-loaded: read-only status first, then contents, then filtering/pagination. The returned-field enumeration is long but earns its place given there is no output schema. No filler sentences.

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 list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description enumerates the returned fields and documents the filtering and pagination contract, leaving little ambiguity. It could note ordering guarantees or behavior on empty results, but coverage is strong.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning beyond the schema: the fromFid/toFid semantics as a range filter and the special-case that non-numeric-FID fixtures are omitted when a range is given. Limit's default/max is repeated from the schema, which adds nothing.

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?

States a specific verb (lists) and resource (the show's fixtures from the live patch), and specifies scope details (every stage, sub-fixtures included, patch order) that separate it from generic listing siblings like gma3_fixtures or gma3_objects.

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 the filtering (fromFid/toFid) and pagination mechanics, which imply usage, but never states when to reach for this rather than gma3_fixtures, gma3_patch_types, or gma3_dump, nor any prerequisites. Usage is implied, not directed.

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