ChessVox daily puzzle

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does much of it: it discloses the return payload (FEN, full solution as UCI moves, player rating), the UCI notation with a worked example ("c2h7" for Qxh7#), and the UTC day semantics. It omits edge behavior such as what happens for a future or invalid day, or whether every date has a puzzle.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scoping, then return shape, then use cases. Slight redundancy in restating that the FEN gives the side to move, but nothing wasteful.

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 single-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs: what it fetches, the date constraint, and a precise inventory of returned fields including move notation format.

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 100% and the single `day` parameter is already documented with its pattern and an example. The description's 'past UTC day' phrasing reinforces but does not materially extend the schema's 'Optional past UTC day to fetch instead of today's puzzle'.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the ChessVox daily puzzle') and immediately scopes it to today or a past UTC day. The resource is distinct enough from the sibling tools (mate rush puzzles, starter repertoires) that an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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?

Gives concrete usage contexts — showing a puzzle, hinting the first solution move, verifying a user's answer — which map well to how an agent would pick this tool. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or pointing at the sibling puzzle tools as alternatives.

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