get_match_facts_by_fixture_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states 'Get match facts' without indicating whether the operation is read-only, paginated, or limited. The input schema includes pagination parameters, but the description omits this behavior. No disclosure of rate limits or data scope.

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 (6 words), but this sacrifices valuable detail. It is a single sentence with no structure. While it avoids verbosity, it does not earn its place by providing enough context for effective use.

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, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what match facts are, how pagination works, what the includes parameter does, or how filters are applied. An agent would need to guess or rely on parameter names.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a brief description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. For example, 'fixture_id' is described as 'Fixture ID.' in both schema and description. The description does not clarify how 'include', 'select', or 'filters' work, though the schema provides minimal cues.

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 uses the verb 'Get' and resource 'match facts for a specific fixture', clearly indicating the tool retrieves match facts identified by a fixture. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_all_match_facts and get_match_facts_by_date_range by specifying 'for a specific fixture', but does not elaborate on the nature of match facts.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage when a fixture ID is available, but does not mention alternatives like get_match_facts_by_date_range or get_match_facts_by_league_id. An agent would have to infer usage from the parameter.

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