Recent games

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond that: results are restricted to finished games (not in-progress), ordered newest first, and include result, ratings, opening, accuracy and a link. Missing only pagination/cap behavior and the fact that limit is capped at 50.

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 that names the resource first and then the ordering and returned fields. No filler, no redundancy with the title.

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 read-only list tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is nearly sufficient, and it partly compensates for the absent output schema by naming returned fields. It falls short only on the 'recent' semantics and the 50-item ceiling.

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 100%, so all three parameters (limit, username, time_class) are already documented with defaults and enum values. The description mentions 'a player's' only obliquely and adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 resource (a player's most recent finished games) plus scope detail (newest first, finished only) and enumerates the payload fields. An agent can tell this apart from get_ratings or month_summary by resource alone, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 prerequisites (e.g. requires a valid Chess.com username), and no routing to or away from siblings like month_summary for aggregate views. It simply describes what the output contains.

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