search_player

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

No annotations exist, but the description discloses key behavioral traits: fuzzy matching, case-insensitivity, and the nature of search (returns candidates). It does not mention any destructive side effects, which is appropriate for a lookup tool. However, it could mention potential empty results or performance limitations.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence defines the operation and output, the second provides usage guidance. Information is front-loaded.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains return values (FIDE ID, rating, title, country). It also explains the tool's role in a larger workflow (resolving names for other tools). Given the tool's simplicity, the description is 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with the 'name' parameter described as 'Player name or partial name. Case-insensitive, fuzzy.' The description adds context about using it to resolve to a FIDE ID, but the schema already conveys the fuzzy and partial nature. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 performs 'Fuzzy name lookup for FIDE-rated chess players' and lists the returned fields (FIDE ID, rating, title, country). This distinguishes it from siblings like analyse, get_player_preparation, etc., which involve analysis or tournament 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?

Explicitly tells when to use: 'Use this to resolve a plain-English name ... to the FIDE ID that every other tool needs.' This provides clear context for when this tool is appropriate versus others.

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