APIbase

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It provides useful scale context ('2000+ leagues', '362+ fixtures per day') and identifies the data source ('API-Sports'), but lacks critical safety information (read-only vs destructive), rate limits, or return format details that would help an agent understand execution risks.

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 efficiently structured with zero waste. It front-loads the core functionality ('Football/soccer fixtures...'), follows with filtering scope, and ends with scale context. Every clause earns its place in two tight sentences.

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 5-parameter schema with no required fields and no output schema, the description adequately covers input intent but fails to describe the return structure. Since no output schema exists, the description should have briefly indicated what data structure is returned (fixture objects with scores, times, venues, etc.).

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 has 100% description coverage, establishing a baseline of 3. The description mentions filtering by league and gives examples (Premier League, La Liga), but the schema already contains these specific ID mappings. The description adds little semantic value beyond confirming the filtering intent already clear from parameter names.

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 identifies the resource (football/soccer fixtures, live scores, results) and core actions using specific verbs. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sports.football.leagues' or 'sports.football.standings', leaving some ambiguity about which football tool to select.

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 lists filtering capabilities (date, league, team) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (like needing league/team IDs from the sibling 'sports.football.leagues' tool) or scenarios where it should be avoided.

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