get_club_profile

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the important caveat that returned fields are untrusted external data, which goes beyond the annotations and warns the agent about data quality. This is useful additional 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 extremely concise, using a single sentence with a semicolon to add the important caveat. It front-loads the tool's purpose and includes only necessary information.

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?

The description adequately captures the tool's purpose but leaves gaps: it does not clarify the url_id parameter or indicate what constitutes a club profile, and there is no output schema. For a simple fetch tool, this is minimal but not complete, especially with siblings that could cause confusion.

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 contains one parameter, url_id, with no description, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain what url_id means or provide format expectations, leaving the agent to infer from the parameter name alone. This is a significant gap given the lack of schema documentation.

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 retrieves a Chess.com club's public profile, using the specific verb 'Get' and identifying the resource as a club profile. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_player_profile (player) and get_club_members (members).

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 implies usage when one needs a club's public profile, but it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_club_members or provide when/when-not guidance. No exclusions or alternative tool recommendations are given.

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