lichess_top_players

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds almost nothing beyond those annotations: it does not explain ranking order, whether the list is bounded, or what happens with no perfType supplied.

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 single sentence is concise and front-loaded, but its brevity comes at the cost of under-specification. It does not waste words, but it also leaves out information needed to use the tool confidently.

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 two-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema, the definition is missing key context: what nb controls, whether it is optional with a default, and what the returned ranking represents. An agent could invoke it, but not with a full understanding of the result.

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 only 50%: perfType is documented and enumerated, but nb has no description in either the schema or the tool description. The phrase 'for a game mode' loosely maps to perfType but does not clarify nb's meaning, range, or default.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get top Lichess players') and adds a scope element ('for a game mode'), so an agent understands the basic operation. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as chess_leaderboards or lichess_user, and the 'game mode' phrasing is less precise than the perfType enum.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of when not to use it, and no reference to alternatives like chess_leaderboards. The agent must infer usage from 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.