fpl_fixtures

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects (none expected), rate limits, authentication requirements, or any constraints like maximum gameweek values. The description is too minimal to inform an AI agent about behavioral traits.

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—just 8 words. It is front-loaded with the core action and includes the optional parameter. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy.

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's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It explains what the tool does and the filter option. However, it does not describe the return value structure, which could be useful since there is no output schema. The description is adequate but lacks depth.

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 single parameter 'gameweek' is described as optional, which adds meaning beyond the schema (which only specifies type number). However, with 0% schema description coverage, the description could have provided more context about the parameter's format or default behavior (e.g., returns all fixtures if omitted).

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 tool retrieves FPL fixtures with an optional gameweek filter. It uses specific verb 'Get' and resource 'FPL fixtures'. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling FPL tools like fpl_gameweek or fpl_bootstrap, which might also retrieve fixture-related data.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, limitations, or typical scenarios. The description is purely functional without usage context.

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