Get club details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that it returns 'details', but does not disclose whether it is read-only, requires authentication, or any error behaviors (e.g., what happens if the club does not exist). This is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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, well-structured sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the essential information efficiently.

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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is almost complete, but it lacks details about the return format or error cases. While sibling tools exist, no explicit distinctions are made. Annotations are absent, which would have helped.

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 adds meaning to the sole parameter 'urlId' by explaining it is 'the slug in chess.com/club/<url-id>'. This clarifies the expected format beyond the schema's type 'string'.

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 specifies a clear verb-resource combination ('Details for a club') and distinguishes from the sibling 'chess_get_clubs' (plural), which likely lists clubs. It also clarifies the identification method using the URL slug.

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 that the tool should be used when you have a club's URL id, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'chess_get_clubs' or exclude other use cases. No guidance on prerequisites or error handling.

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