get_player_stats

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

Annotations already establish read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context by noting the data is 'untrusted external data' and 'public', which warns the agent about data source reliability and access scope.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action ('Get'), and contains no redundant words. Every word earns its place.

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 with rich annotations, the description covers purpose, data source trust, and public scope. It would benefit from a bit more detail on what specific statistics are returned, but the absence of an output schema doesn't heavily penalize this.

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 0%, and the description provides no direct elaboration on the 'username' parameter. While the parameter is self-explanatory, the description does not add any meaning beyond the schema's property title, failing to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Get a Chess.com player's public ratings and statistics', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_player_profile (profile info) and get_player_game_archives (games) by focusing on ratings and statistics.

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?

Usage is implied: when you need ratings and statistics. However, there is no explicit mention of when not to use it or alternatives. It doesn't contrast with sibling tools like get_player_profile, which might also contain ratings.

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