get_today_fixtures

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose return format, pagination, error behavior, or freshness guarantees, and only briefly mentions that results may be included. This is insufficient for a read-only tool with no 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, front-loaded sentences with zero waste. It immediately states the purpose and then adds a relevant behavioral note about results.

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 no-annotation, single-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description provides the core purpose and timezone but lacks sufficient behavioral detail (e.g., result inclusion criteria, update frequency). It is minimally adequate but has clear gaps.

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 schema already fully documents the single optional 'league' parameter with examples. The description adds no parameter details beyond what the schema provides, but baseline is 4 because schema coverage is high and the description implies filtering without contradicting it.

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 (조회합니다) and resource (오늘 예정된 축구 경기 일정), and notes the timezone basis (KST). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_upcoming_fixtures and get_live_scores by scoping to 'today' and including results, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with those siblings.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_upcoming_fixtures or get_live_scores. Usage is only implied by the name and description; no exclusions or prerequisites are stated.

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