get_country_clubs

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral context. 'List' indicates a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose additional traits such as pagination, sorting, or response format. It is not misleading but lacks depth beyond the basic action.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It communicates the essential purpose efficiently, earning a perfect score for conciseness.

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 simple one-parameter list tool, the description is largely sufficient. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not specify the structure of the returned data (e.g., club IDs, URLs, or names). Given the low complexity, the gap is minor, so 4 is appropriate.

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 100% for the single parameter countryCode, which already includes a pattern and description ('Two-letter ISO 3166 country code'). The tool description adds no further semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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?

The description clearly states the tool lists Chess.com clubs associated with a country, using a specific verb ('List') and resource ('clubs'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_country_players (players) and get_club (a single club), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 tool's purpose implies when to use it (when you need clubs for a country), but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like get_country_players or get_country. There are no exclusions or compared scenarios, leaving usage partly inferred.

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