lichess_users_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, and the description adds useful context: no auth required, a hard 50-user limit, and an explicit return shape. This goes beyond the annotation metadata without contradicting it.

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 tightly packed: one headline sentence, return format, a minimal example, and an auth note. Every line earns its place and the most important info is front-loaded.

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 read-only batch status tool, this is largely complete: it specifies the limit, return fields, example input, and auth status. It does not cover edge cases like invalid usernames or over-limit behavior, but given the annotations and simplicity, the coverage is sufficient.

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 covers the single param fully, so baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete example showing ids as an array, which clarifies usage. Note: the schema description says 'comma-joined' while the example shows an array, which is slightly confusing, but the example still adds practical meaning.

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 opens with 'Online/playing status for up to 50 users in one call — who is available right now,' which clearly identifies the resource (Lichess user statuses), the action (fetching status), and the batch scope. It also lists the exact return fields, distinguishing it from single-user tools like lichess_user.

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 phrase 'in one call' and the 50-user cap establish when to use this tool: when you need status for multiple users at once. It also states 'Auth: none needed,' clarifying prerequisites. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it stops short of a full when/when-not guideline.

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