chesscom: Get club

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety and repeatability profile is covered structurally. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that (no auth requirements, rate limits, or note on whether unknown club ids error), which is acceptable given the lower bar set by the annotations but not value-adding.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. The identifier-format hint is embedded parenthetically rather than consuming an extra sentence, which is efficient.

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?

For a simple, fully-schematized read tool whose annotations cover the safety profile, the description gives enough to invoke it correctly. The only real gap is that no output schema exists and the description says nothing about what club details are returned.

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 100%: club_id carries an example and fields is documented as comma-separated keys. The description's "slug after /club/ in the web URL" adds provenance for the id that the schema's example only implies, a marginal gain, so the 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 states a specific verb and resource ("Get Chess.com club details") and names the platform, which lets an agent separate it from chesscom_get_player (a person) and chesscom_get_player_clubs (a list of clubs for a player). It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so it lands at a clear-but-undifferentiated 4.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative tool is referenced. The parenthetical about the URL slug explains how to build the id, which is parameter semantics rather than usage routing, so an agent gets no help choosing between this and chesscom_get_player_clubs.

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