chesscom_get_player

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions it's a 'public profile' (read operation) but does not discuss error handling (e.g., if username doesn't exist), rate limits, or how fresh the data is. For a simple read tool, this lacks sufficient detail.

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 sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose, front-loading the action. However, ending with 'etc.' introduces vagueness. It is concise but could be slightly more structured.

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 covers the basic functionality. However, it does not specify the return format or fields, which would be helpful since there is no output schema. The examples give a hint but are incomplete.

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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'username' described as 'case-insensitive' in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it does not elaborate on parameter constraints or format. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high coverage.

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 retrieves a Chess.com player's public profile, listing several example fields (name, country, joined date, last online, title). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like chesscom_get_player_stats (which returns game statistics) and chesscom_get_player_archives (which returns game archives).

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 implies use when you need basic profile information, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., chesscom_get_player_stats for detailed stats). No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.

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