chesscom_club

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds 'Auth: none needed' and the expected return structure, which provides some behavioral context. It doesn't mention error cases, rate limits, or pagination, but for a simple read operation with annotations, this is adequate.

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 well-structured with a brief summary, a return fields list, an example, and an auth statement. It is appropriately sized and front-loads the core information, with no redundant sentences. The example adds clarity without excessive length.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential context: what the club data is, what fields are returned, how to specify the club, and that no auth is needed. It lacks details on error handling or variations in response, but for this scope it is fairly complete.

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 already provides comprehensive documentation for club_id, including the format and example (100% schema description coverage). The description's example and 'part of the URL path' note in the schema overlap, adding minimal new semantic value. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema carries the load.

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 (Chess.com club) and lists the data fields returned (description, membership count, admins, average rating), which implies a retrieval operation. It doesn't use a strong verb like 'get' or 'fetch', but the 'Returns:' format makes the purpose clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling chess tools by focusing on club data rather than player or leaderboard info.

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 gives a concrete example of usage ('club_id': 'chess-com-developer-community') and notes 'Auth: none needed', which implies when it can be used. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites beyond the required parameter.

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