sm_fixtures

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get' (implying read-only) and lists modes, but provides no details on pagination behavior, response format, rate limits, or data freshness. This is a significant gap for a tool with 12 parameters and no output 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 very concise: two sentences with the verb-led purpose first, a compact list of supported modes, and a closing positional statement. Every word earns its place with no fluff or repetition, making it easy to scan.

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 tool is complex with 12 parameters and six modes, but the schema's per-parameter descriptions already cover syntax and associations. The description adds the 'core endpoint' context and a mode overview, which is enough given the schema richness. It could mention pagination or includes, but schema covers those, so this is slightly above average.

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 already has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's mode list adds a high-level overview but is mostly redundant with the schema's enum and per-parameter notes. It adds no extra semantic depth beyond the schema, so it stays at 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 'Get football fixtures' with a specific verb and resource, and enumerates six distinct query modes (by ID, by date, etc.). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like sm_livescores or sm_schedules, and 'core endpoint for match data' reinforces its role.

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?

The description implies usage context by listing all supported modes, and calling it 'the core endpoint' signals it is the primary fixtures tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives or exclude sibling tools, so it lacks full comparative guidance.

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