chess_player_games

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say how many games are returned, whether 'recent' means the current month or a rolling window, whether the Chess.com published-data archives are queried, or how failures for unknown users surface.

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 no filler, exactly the right shape. The brevity is only a problem because nothing was added after the core statement, not because of wasted 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?

For a 3-parameter tool with a 0%-covered schema and no output schema, an agent still cannot tell what a call returns or how the date filters behave. The description would need to spell out the default time window, the year/month relationship, and roughly what a game record contains.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for three parameters. It implies username is the key lookup but says nothing about the year/month parameters: no format ('month' is a bare number, presumably 1-12), no statement that month requires year, and no explanation of the default window when both are omitted.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get recent games') scoped to a Chess.com player, which is more precise than the typical list endpoint cliché. It does not distinguish itself from chess_player, chess_player_stats, or lichess_user_games, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 statement of when to use this tool, when to prefer a sibling (e.g. chess_player for profile data or lichess_user_games for Lichess), or any prerequisite such as the account needing to be public. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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