search_games

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool fetches live from the Lichess API with a fallback to local export, and notes the default blitz mode. However, it does not mention auth requirements, read-only status, or potential rate limits. The live-fetch disclosure is meaningful.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence provides necessary information: scope/default, filter semantics, and data source behavior. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

The description covers the tool's scope, default behavior, filter semantics, date format, and data source. Since an output schema exists, return values need not be described. The main gaps are the lack of detail on 'opponent' and 'eco', but overall the description is quite complete for a search tool with 6 optional parameters.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the semantics of colour, result, and date format for since/until, which are the most ambiguous. It does not explain eco or opponent, but these are relatively self-explanatory. Overall, it adds significant value beyond the schema.

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 searches the user's own rated Lichess games, with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('user's own rated Lichess games'). It also mentions a default (blitz) which adds specificity and differentiates it from sibling tools that deal with databases and repertoires.

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 provides clear context: it is for searching the user's own rated games, with an implicit filter scope from the user's perspective. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the context is strong enough to distinguish it from siblings.

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