fusion_get_fixture

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return content ('expectations and stored SQL') but does not disclose failure behavior, errors, or other behavioral details. This is adequate but minimal beyond the 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 two short sentences and one argument note, with the core behavior front-loaded and no wasted words. Every sentence earns its place.

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 rich annotations and an output schema present, the description is complete: it states what the tool reads, what the result includes, and where to obtain the required parameter. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to use it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must carry the semantic weight for the only parameter. 'The fixture name as reported by fusion_list_fixtures' fully defines what 'name' means and gives the agent an exact source for the value, which is significantly more meaningful than the schema's bare string type.

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 a specific action ('Read') and a specific resource ('one saved fixture'), and further details what is included ('expectations and stored SQL'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling fusion_list_fixtures by focusing on a single fixture, so an agent can tell the tools apart.

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 by saying the name must come from 'fusion_list_fixtures', which is a practical instruction for invoking this tool correctly. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the source-of-name guidance is sufficient for this simple case.

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