Get Fixture

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds a meaningful prerequisite: 'Requires project context.' It also discloses what the response will contain (raw source and normalized JSON), which goes beyond the schema and helps the agent anticipate the result.

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 one sentence and front-loads the core action and resource. The only blemish is the unexplained 'E84:' prefix, which adds noise without helping an agent understand the 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?

For a single-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is retrieved, the identifier used, the content shape returned, and the project-context prerequisite. No critical information for invoking this tool is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents fixtureId as the public GUID. The description adds little beyond restating 'public ID,' so it does not meaningfully expand parameter 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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('a fixture'), the identifier type ('public ID'), and the expected content ('raw source and normalized JSON content'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_fixtures or get_fixture_usage.

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 clear context: use this tool to retrieve a single fixture by its public ID, and project context must be set. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the singular-resource purpose is unambiguous enough for basic selection.

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