chesscom_get_country_players

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns usernames and titles, indicating a read-only operation with no side effects. While it does not detail error cases or rate limits, it is sufficient for a simple retrieval tool.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose. It contains only essential information with no unnecessary words.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers what the agent needs: what it does and what it returns. It is complete for its straightforward purpose.

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% for the single 'country' parameter. The description adds no further explanation beyond the schema's 'ISO 3166 alpha-2 country code' description. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already provides adequate meaning.

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 explicitly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'list of titled Chess.com players from a country', and mentions the return data (usernames and titles). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like chesscom_get_player or chesscom_get_leaderboards.

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 clearly implies when to use (to get titled players by country code), but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternative tools. The context is clear, but no exclusions are mentioned.

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