get_titled_players

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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, safe operation. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations: the result is bounded (implying pagination via limit/offset) and that the returned names are untrusted external data, warning the agent about data quality.

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?

A single sentence with no redundant words. The key facts are front-loaded: action, resource, and the important caveat about untrusted data. Every element 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?

Given the simple parameter set and strong annotations, the description provides adequate context for most use cases. It highlights the bounded nature and the untrusted data caveat, but lacks accepted title values and explicit pagination guidance. Still, the tool is simple enough that this is nearly complete.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fails to compensate. It clarifies that 'title' refers to a Chess.com title, but provides no enumeration of accepted values (e.g., GM, IM). The limit and offset parameters are not explained at all beyond the word 'bounded,' leaving the agent to infer their semantics.

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 identifies the action (Get), the resource (players with a Chess.com title), and a key constraint (bounded list). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on titled players rather than individual profiles, stats, or game data.

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 intended use is implied: it is the tool for retrieving a list of titled players, not for individual player data. However, the description does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives or mention any exclusions, such as not needing a specific player ID.

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