fpl_get_fixtures_for_gameweek

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds that it returns fixture details, scores if finished, difficulty ratings, and error conditions. This goes beyond annotations to disclose behavior like output format options and error handling.

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 structured with sections (main, args, returns, examples, error handling), making it easy to scan. While informative, it could be slightly more concise; however, it remains efficient and front-loads the purpose.

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 annotations (readOnly, idempotent) and output schema presence, the description explains what the tool returns and handles errors. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools but covers the core functionality well. The description is adequate for selecting and using the tool.

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 provides detailed descriptions for all three parameters (gameweek, detailed, response_format), and the description reinforces them with examples and usage notes. The schema descriptions are thorough, so the tool description adds value with examples and error handling context.

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 'Get all Premier League fixtures for a specific gameweek,' specifying the verb (get) and resource (fixtures) with a specific scope. It distinguishes from sibling tools like fpl_analyze_team_fixtures or fpl_get_manager_squad by focusing on raw fixture 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?

The description provides usage context: 'Useful for planning transfers based on fixture difficulty and understanding upcoming matches.' It includes examples and error handling. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives, which would strengthen the guidance.

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