get_country_players

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states that it 'List[s]' players, with no information about pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, error behavior, or the output format. This is a minimal disclosure that does not go 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 concise sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose. Every word contributes value, with no redundant or filler content. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the simplicity of the tool.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description should explain what the return value looks like (e.g., list of usernames, player profiles). It does not do this. The tool is simple, but the description is too terse to be fully complete, leaving the agent uncertain about the response structure and any additional behavior.

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 schema description for the single parameter 'countryCode' has 100% coverage, providing the pattern and description. The tool description does not add any additional parameter meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies when the schema fully documents parameters. No enhancement or compensation is needed.

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's function: 'List Chess.com players associated with a country.' The verb 'List' and resource 'players' are specific, and the scope 'associated with a country' distinguishes it from siblings like get_country_clubs (clubs) and get_country (country info). However, it does not explicitly mention the input parameter or differentiate itself beyond the resource type.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is the tool for listing players by country, nor does it exclude other tools. The usage context is only implied by the tool name and description, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' or mention of alternatives.

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