get_player_profile

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 lists the data returned but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or has no side effects. However, the nature of the data (stats) implies retrieval, and no contradictions are present.

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 comprehensive yet concise, listing many features in a single paragraph. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured for easier scanning.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is quite complete in telling an agent what data the tool returns. It covers all major aspects (identity, rating history, career stats, openings, opponents). However, it does not mention error handling or limitations.

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 coverage is 100% (one parameter with description 'FIDE ID from search_player'). The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides; it mentions 'FIDE ID' but that is already in the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 it provides 'Full stats for one player' and lists specific data categories (identity, rating history, career stats, openings, opponent analysis). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by saying it is 'often enough on its own' for common player queries, implying it is a comprehensive profile tool.

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 ends with guidance on when to use it: 'Often enough on its own for 'how strong is X, what do they play, who have they beaten''. This implies it is suitable for high-level player overviews, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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