get_probabilities_by_fixture_id

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as being a read-only operation, pagination behavior, or whether all outcome probabilities are returned. The presence of pagination parameters in the schema is not acknowledged.

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 a single sentence that immediately conveys the core action. It is concise and front-loaded, but given the tool has 7 parameters, a slightly more structured description could still be concise while adding value.

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 is incomplete for a tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. It lacks explanation of return format, pagination, differences from sibling tools, and how the optional parameters affect 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema; it merely restates the fixture_id context. No additional meaning is provided for the optional parameters like include, select, filters, etc.

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 verb 'get' and the resource 'match outcome probabilities' for a specific fixture. It differentiates from the general `get_probabilities` but doesn't clarify if these are pre-match or live probabilities, which could be ambiguous given sibling tools like `get_live_probabilities_by_fixture_id`.

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 guidelines are provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as `get_probabilities` or `get_live_probabilities_by_fixture_id`. There is no discussion of prerequisites or contextual conditions for use.

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