get_fide_player

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('Get FIDE player information') without mentioning any behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output format might be. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 very concise ('Get FIDE player information'), consisting of a single, straightforward sentence. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse. However, it might be overly brief, potentially sacrificing clarity for brevity, which slightly reduces its effectiveness.

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 the tool's complexity (a read operation with one parameter) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned, any prerequisites (e.g., authentication), or how it differs from similar tools. For a tool in this context, more detail is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'playerId' clearly documented as 'FIDE player ID'. The description does not add any meaning beyond this, as it doesn't explain the parameter's usage or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics.

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 'Get FIDE player information' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('FIDE player information'), making the purpose understandable. However, it's somewhat vague about what specific information is retrieved (e.g., rating, profile, history) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'search_fide_players' or 'get_user_profile', which might overlap in functionality.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are sibling tools like 'search_fide_players' for finding players and 'get_user_profile' for user data, but no indication of how this tool differs or when it's preferred. This lack of context leaves the agent to guess based on the tool name alone.

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