Fixture schedule

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds useful behavioral context by noting the results are 'earliest first' and represent the 'forward schedule'. However, it does not mention pagination, limit behavior, or how open-world results might be incomplete, so it adds only moderate value beyond annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose and ordering. Every word adds value, with no filler or redundant explanation. It is appropriately sized for such a simple read-only list tool.

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 simple, has a full output schema, and rich annotations, so the description does not need to explain return values or safety. However, given the context of 24 sibling tools, especially the ambiguous get_upcoming_matches, the description does not fully disambiguate its role in the broader toolset. It clearly separates from live/recent but not from upcoming matches, leaving an important completeness gap.

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% — both 'tour' and 'limit' have detailed descriptions covering allowed values, defaults, and exclusions (e.g., exhibition events excluded when tour filter used). The tool description provides no additional parameter information, so it earns the baseline 3 for schema-driven semantics.

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 it returns 'Upcoming scheduled tennis fixtures, earliest first' — a specific resource (fixtures) with temporal scope and ordering. However, it does not distinguish this from the sibling tool 'get_upcoming_matches', which likely covers the same or overlapping purpose, so it lacks full sibling differentiation.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that live matches should go to get_live_matches or that past results belong to get_recent_results, nor does it clarify the relationship with get_upcoming_matches. The only implied use is for upcoming fixtures, but no exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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