lichess_user

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond them – nothing about what fields the profile contains, rate limits, or behavior for nonexistent users.

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 zero waste. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-long, so it loses only a point for giving the reader too little.

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 low-complexity, read-only lookup with one obvious parameter and annotations covering safety, this is minimally adequate. It is still thin because it says nothing about the returned profile content or the required username format.

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 single username parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. Saying 'a Lichess user profile' only weakly implies that username identifies the user; there are no details on format, case sensitivity, or whether Lichess usernames are required to exist.

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 (Get) and a specific resource (Lichess user profile), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as chess_player or lichess_user_games, leaving some ambiguity about which source to prefer.

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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like chess_player, lichess_user_games, or lichess_top_players. Usage is only implied by the name.

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