Get puzzle of the day

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It lists the output fields, which is helpful, but it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or timezone dependence for 'today.' These are not critical for a simple read-only tool, but the lack of any discussion of behavior beyond the content leaves gaps.

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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Today's Lichess daily puzzle') and then enumerates the returned components. Every word earns its place, with no wasted verbiage.

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, parameterless tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential contents. The only notable gap is the lack of timezone specificity for 'today,' which could affect interpretation. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema confirms an empty object. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description does not need to explain parameter details since there are none. No additional parameter semantics are required.

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 tool's function: retrieving Lichess's daily puzzle. It specifies the exact contents returned (FEN, side to move, rating, themes, solution in UCI/SAN), which also distinguishes it from all sibling tools that focus on users, games, or analysis.

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 purpose is self-evident: use this when you need the daily puzzle. No explicit comparison to alternatives is given, but since no sibling tool offers puzzle data, the unique scope serves as implicit guidance. It lacks explicit exclusions but context is clear.

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