chesscom: Get player clubs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds one useful return-content detail (entries carry last-activity timestamps), but says nothing about auth, rate limits, or result size/pagination.

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 the verb and resource first and the return-content detail in a parenthetical. Nothing is wasted.

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?

With no output schema, the description partially compensates by noting the returned list includes last-activity timestamps. For a simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, that is nearly sufficient, though a hint about the optional 'fields' projection or result ordering would round it out.

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% (both 'username' and 'fields' are documented in the schema), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, not even clarifying what 'fields' keys are valid for this endpoint.

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 gives a specific verb ('Get'), resource ('list of Chess.com clubs') and scope ('a player belongs to'), which clearly separates it from chesscom_get_club (single club details) and chesscom_get_country_players. It never names those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the distinction, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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 mention of alternatives, even though chesscom_get_club could plausibly be confused with this tool. Usage is only implied by the resource being described, which the rubric treats as insufficient for a 3.

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