Search players

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the core autocomplete behavior and the 'partial string' input, but does not address potential details like result limits, ordering, case-insensitivity, or error cases. For a simple read-only search, this is adequate but not rich.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and every sentence adds value. The usage guidance is integrated efficiently without redundancy.

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?

This is a simple search tool with two parameters and an output schema. The description covers the essential purpose and usage context. While it omits behavioral details like limit semantics, the output schema likely documents return values, so the overall description is reasonably complete for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that 'pattern' is a partial string, adding meaning beyond the schema. However, 'limit' is left completely unexplained; the schema only shows it is an integer with a default of 10. This partial compensation warrants a middle score.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Autocomplete Lichess usernames from a partial string.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_user_profile and get_recent_games, which focus on retrieving data, not search.

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 provides clear context: 'Use this to resolve a half-remembered or misspelled username before calling other tools.' This explicitly tells the agent when to use it, though it does not mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives.

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