get_chess_player_stats

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Get the stats.' It does not mention return format, possible errors, rate limits, or what specific stats are included, leaving the agent without important behavioral context.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the core purpose and parameter, making it appropriately concise for a tool with one obvious parameter.

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 one-parameter tool, the description is minimally adequate: it names the action and the parameter. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it lacks details about the returned stats or failure behavior, which reduces completeness.

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 description's 'by username' adds some meaning by clarifying that the username is the Chess.com player identifier, but this largely repeats the schema's property name. It does not add format, constraints, or examples beyond what the input schema already provides.

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 the tool gets stats for a Chess.com player, using the specific verb 'Get' and a distinct resource ('stats') that differentiates it from the sibling tool get_chess_player_profile. However, it does not explicitly mention the sibling or explain the distinction, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus get_chess_player_profile. The description only states what it does, not the context or exclusions, so an agent has no assistance in choosing between the sibling tools.

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