List fixtures and results

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions pagination via cursor, which is a key behavioral detail. However, it does not describe response structure, default ordering, rate limits, or how multiple filters combine, leaving room for ambiguity. The pagination note adds value, but the overall behavioral disclosure is partial.

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 two sentences with no extraneous words. It front-loads the action and filters, then follows with pagination and the relationship to sibling tools. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is optimal for quick parsing.

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?

For a list tool with eight optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core aspects: filtering, pagination, and the downstream use of returned IDs. However, it omits details about the response format (e.g., fields, count, default sort order) and any error or edge-case behaviors. Given the absence of annotations, a more thorough description would improve completeness, but it is sufficient for basic usage.

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 documents most parameters to a high degree (88% coverage), including types and examples. The description adds the filter list and the pagination cursor mention, but does not introduce new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. The statement about using IDs for other tools is not directly about parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 holds.

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 lists fixtures and results, and enumerates the filter dimensions (date, competition, team, status, season, round). It distinguishes from sibling match-specific tools by directly linking the returned IDs to lineups, events, xg, and context tools, making its role as the match-identifier source explicit.

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 gives actionable guidance by telling the agent to use the returned IDs as the match id for lineups, events, xg, and context tools, which sets this tool as the entry point for match-specific queries. It does not explicitly mention alternatives for standings, competitions, or search, but the ID linkage provides clear usage context. Some exclusion guidance is missing, but the primary flow is well indicated.

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