Get recent games

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature via 'Fetch' and lists the return data, giving a basic sense of behavior. However, it omits details about authentication requirements, pagination, rate limits, or error handling, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency for a networked API tool.

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, efficiently structured sentence that front-loads the core action and target, then lists the key return fields and optional filters. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary detail.

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 tool has six parameters with zero schema descriptions and no annotations, the one-sentence description is too sparse to provide complete context. While an output schema exists and relieves the need to explain return values, the parameter semantics and operational constraints remain largely undocumented, making this incomplete for confident tool selection and invocation.

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 zero description coverage, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It explains that 'format' and 'color' are optional filters, but it does not mention 'username', 'count', 'rated_only', or 'include_pgn', leaving the agent to guess from their names. This is insufficient for a six-parameter tool.

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 uses the specific verb 'Fetch' with a clear resource ('a player's most recent games') and enumerates the returned fields (PGN, result, opponent, opening, accuracy), making the tool's purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_game_analysis, so it lacks the sibling contrast seen in higher-scoring examples.

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 primary use case is evident: fetching a player's recent games with selected data, and the optional filters for format and color imply when to use those variations. There is no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or which sibling to choose instead, but the description provides sufficient context for a straightforward fetch operation.

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