get_commentaries_by_fixture_id

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

With no annotations to fall back on, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It only states the basic function without revealing any behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or pagination behavior. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 concise at 5 words, front-loading the key purpose. It avoids any fluff, but it could be slightly expanded to include essential context without becoming verbose. Still, it achieves good conciseness.

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 tool has 7 parameters including pagination (page, per_page) and filtering options, the description is too terse. It does not explain the format of the response or that results may be paginated. The lack of an output schema further necessitates a more detailed description.

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 covers all 7 parameters with descriptions, achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema already provides. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 action (Get), the resource (textual commentary), and the scope (for a specific fixture). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'get_all_commentaries' which would fetch all commentaries without fixture filtering.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that for all commentaries without a fixture filter, one should use 'get_all_commentaries'. The context of use is completely left to the agent.

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