events

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about whether events cover live vs. finished fixtures, ordering, extra time, or the response shape. The list of event types (goals, cards, subs) is the only behavioral content added.

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?

Eight words, front-loaded with the resource and scope, with no filler. Brevity is appropriate for a one-parameter tool, though it borders on under-specification.

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 simple single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the definition is minimally sufficient to call the tool correctly. However, it leaves open whether results are live or historical and what fields each event carries, which an agent would need to plan around.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented as 'Fixture id', so the description adds nothing beyond the schema. A baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 names the resource (events) and the parent scope (a fixture), and enumerates the event kinds returned (goals, cards, subs), so an agent knows what payload to expect. It does not differentiate from siblings such as live_scores, which could plausibly contain the same data, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives like live_scores for in-progress matches. Usage is only implied by the phrase 'for a fixture'.

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