chesscom_get_player_clubs

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states the tool returns club names with timestamps, but omits details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or error handling (e.g., if the username does not exist). This lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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, concise sentence (15 words) that front-loads the action and resource. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It does not explain the return format, potential errors, or any constraints (e.g., whether authentication is needed). For a simple lookup tool, this is insufficient to fully prepare an agent.

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 one parameter (username) with a clear description ('Chess.com username'). Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 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 clearly specifies the action ('Get'), the resource ('list of Chess.com clubs a player belongs to'), and includes additional detail ('with last-activity timestamps'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like chesscom_get_club (which retrieves a single club's details) and chesscom_get_player (player profile).

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 the tool is for retrieving clubs for a given player, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., chesscom_get_club for specific club info). No prerequisites or context are provided, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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