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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a data retrieval action and names PGN as the format, but does not state whether the tool returns raw PGN content, file URLs, or an archive, nor does it mention authentication or rate-limit considerations.

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 14-word sentence that front-loads the core action ('Download PGN files') and contains no fluff. It is slightly too spare, omitting the player qualifier, but it remains well-structured and easy to parse.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter descriptions, this one-liner is too skeletal. It lacks parameter explanations, sibling differentiation, and return-behavior details, which an agent would need to invoke and process the result confidently.

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 0%, so the description needs to compensate by explaining the required parameters. It only gestures at 'a specific month' and does not define username, valid year/month ranges, or how the parameters map to the filtering behavior.

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 uses a specific verb ('Download'), a concrete resource ('PGN files'), and a clear scope ('all games in a specific month'), which distinguishes it from JSON-oriented siblings like get_player_games_by_month. However, it never explicitly says the games belong to the given player, leaving 'all games' slightly ambiguous without relying on the tool name.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus closely related siblings such as get_player_games_by_month or get_player_game_archives. An agent is left to infer selection criteria from the tool name and schema alone.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the operation implied by the name. It does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, response shape, or whether this returns a list of matches versus match details.

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 wasted words. It is appropriately short for what little information it conveys, though this brevity comes at the cost of missing useful details.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, a one-line description is not enough for an agent to confidently call the tool correctly. It lacks parameter format guidance and any indication of the result type, though the tool is simple enough that this is only a moderate gap.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the url_id parameter. Although the name suggests a URL identifier, the description does not clarify that it should be the club's URL ID, its format, or how to obtain it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('team matches for a club'), making the tool's core function immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from related siblings like get_club_profile and get_club_members, though it does not explicitly contrast with get_team_match.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_team_match or get_player_matches. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical lookup workflow, or why a caller would choose this over a sibling.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether this is a read-only operation, any authentication or rate-limit requirements, or what the response format looks like. The single sentence offers no behavioral context beyond the 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 sentence with no superfluous words; it is appropriately concise for a simple retrieval tool. However, it is so brief that it lacks helpful detail that could be included without adding much length, so it is efficient but not fully front-loaded with useful context.

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 tool with one required parameter and no annotations, output schema, or parameter descriptions, the definition is incomplete. It does not clarify what 'url_id' refers to or what the response contains. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly without additional information.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the sole required parameter 'url_id'. The agent has no clue what value to provide (e.g., the club's URL slug). The description adds no meaning beyond the parameter name, leaving the agent to guess.

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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('members of a club'), and the platform (Chess.com). It distinguishes from siblings like get_club_profile and get_club_matches by focusing on the member list. However, it does not elaborate on what 'members' includes (e.g., usernames, avatars, joined dates), so it is clear but not richly specific.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or related tools. The usage is only implied by the name and description, which is minimal.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get information', which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state side effects, response characteristics, authentication requirements, or limitations. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 short sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It is front-loaded with the core verb and resource. However, it is so minimal that it misses opportunities to add useful context, though this is more a completeness issue than a conciseness issue.

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 read operation, the description is minimally usable, but it leaves key details unstated: what url_id should look like and what 'information about a club' actually includes. There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description alone must equip the agent, and it falls short of fully doing so.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the url_id parameter. It does not. The parameter name 'url_id' hints that it is a URL identifier, but the description never states that it represents the club's URL slug or provides an example format. An agent would be guessing at the expected value.

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 a verb and resource: 'Get information about a club on Chess.com'. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_club_members or get_club_matches, which also involve clubs, but the word 'profile' in the tool name helps disambiguate. It is clear enough for an agent to know the basic intended operation.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_club_members or get_club_matches. It does not mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. An agent would have to infer the use case entirely from context.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only restates the operation: it says nothing about return shape, pagination, ordering, or absence of side effects. The schema's country format is the only extra signal, and it comes from the schema, not the description.

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 front-loaded and contains no filler. It communicates the core purpose efficiently, even if it sacrifices behavioral detail.

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 read endpoint, the description is minimally viable: an agent can identify the resource and see the country parameter in the schema. However, it lacks any return-format or routing context, and with no output schema or annotations, the agent gets no help beyond the tool name.

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 0%, yet the description adds nothing about the 'country' parameter beyond naming it. It does not explain that the value must be an ISO country code or how it is used; only the schema's pattern provides the format constraint.

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 the action ('Get') and the resource ('clubs associated with a country on Chess.com'), making the tool's function unambiguous. It is clear from context that this differs from sibling tools like get_country_players or get_country_profile, though it doesn't explicitly call out that distinction.

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?

No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_country_players or get_player_clubs. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions, so an agent must rely on the tool name rather than the description for routing decisions.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does reveal a behavioral filter ('recently active') and implies a read-only operation, but it leaves the recency window, response format, and possible pagination unspecified.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It states the action and result directly without wasting the agent's attention.

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 one-parameter read/list tool, the essential purpose is present and understandable. However, with no output schema and no explanation of what 'recently active' means or what the returned player data looks like, it is only minimally complete.

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 has 0% parameter description coverage, and the description does not compensate: it only says players are 'associated with a country' without explaining the ISO two-letter country code. The pattern ^[A-Z]{2}$ in the schema does the real work, so the description adds little semantic value beyond the structured constraint.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('recently active players'), and the association with a country on Chess.com, making the core operation clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling country tools like get_country_profile or get_country_clubs, so it stays below 5.

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 prefer this tool over the many player/country siblings, no exclusions, and no context about typical use cases. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and the single-line description.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only implies a read operation ('Get') but does not specify whether authentication is required, rate limits, or what the response contains. It lacks any detail about side effects or data scope.

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, short sentence with no redundancy or filler. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than efficient 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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description still fails to provide enough context: it does not explain the country code format, the content of the profile, or how it differs from country-related sibling tools. An agent would likely need additional probing to use it correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the 'country' parameter. It does not mention the parameter at all, leaving the agent to infer that 'country' is a two-letter code from the schema pattern. No semantic meaning is added beyond the schema's raw pattern.

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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('country profile') with the context 'on Chess.com'. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like get_country_players or get_country_clubs, which also operate on country data. The purpose is clear but not differentiated.

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 such as get_country_players or get_country_clubs. There is no mention of what specific information this profile returns or when an agent should select it over country-specific variants.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action and resource, but does not disclose any behavioral details such as whether it returns a puzzle object, requires authentication, or has rate limits. For a read-only tool, a simple mention of the response type would improve transparency.

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, clear sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it immediately scannable.

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 simplicity (no params, no output schema), the description is functional but minimal. It does not mention the return format or any additional context like the puzzle's data structure, which could be helpful. However, for a basic fetch tool, it may be sufficient for an agent to understand the core purpose.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. According to the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters, and the description adds no unnecessary detail.

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 a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current daily puzzle from Chess.com'), which distinguishes it from the sibling get_random_puzzle by the 'daily' qualifier. It is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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 implies when to use it (when you want the daily puzzle), but it does not explicitly contrast with get_random_puzzle or mention any exclusions. Since there is a similar sibling, explicit guidance would help, but the meaning is still inferred from the word 'daily'.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get' without mentioning response format, pagination, rate limits, or whether it returns a single leaderboard or multiple. The agent is left without any behavioral expectations beyond the verb.

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 is front-loaded with the action and resource. There is no filler or redundancy, and every word contributes to the purpose. This is an example of efficient under-specification.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should explain what the response contains or any relevant details about the leaderboards (e.g., types, scope). It only states the action without describing the return value or any specifics, leaving the agent without sufficient context to correctly interpret the tool's output.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema is empty and the description adds nothing beyond it. According to the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description does not need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 'Get Chess.com leaderboards' clearly states a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_player_stats or get_tournament, which target different entities. The resource is unambiguous and the purpose is immediately clear.

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 implies usage when leaderboard data is needed, but provides no explicit when/when-not guidance or mention of alternatives. Since there are no similar sibling tools (none fetch leaderboards), the lack of exclusion guidance is acceptable, but the absence of any contextual hint prevents a higher score.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but it does not disclose return format, potential errors, rate limits, or whether the match must be currently live. The description is too thin to establish behavioral expectations.

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 sentence with no structure, examples, or additional context. While concise, it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful, resembling a placeholder rather than a deliberate, informative definition.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description omits essential information: what a 'live team match' entails, how match_id is structured, and what the response will contain. The definition is inadequate for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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 0%, and the description does not mention match_id at all. The schema only provides type and range constraints, leaving the agent without any semantic understanding of what match_id represents or how to obtain it. The description fails to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'live team match' on Chess.com, which is clear about the primary action. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_team_match or get_live_team_match_board, leaving the agent to infer the difference based on the name alone.

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 tool versus the many sibling tools. No context about prerequisites (e.g., whether the match must be ongoing) or alternatives is provided, so the agent has no basis for selection.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does (get a board) without any information on authentication, error handling, rate limits, or the nature of the data returned. For a read operation, this is minimal but does not actively contradict anything.

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, focused sentence with no redundant words. It is appropriately brief for a simple get operation, though it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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 simplicity of the tool (two required parameters, no output schema), the description should at least clarify what a 'board' refers to and what the expected response is. It does not, leaving the agent to rely on domain knowledge. The lack of output schema makes this gap more significant.

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 has 0% description coverage for its two parameters (match_id and board), and the description does not mention them at all. The agent must infer their meaning from names alone, which may be ambiguous. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 action (Get) and the resource (a board from a live team match), and the word 'live' distinguishes it from the sibling get_team_match_board. It is specific and immediately understandable without needing to inspect the schema.

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 implies usage for live team matches, and the presence of get_team_match_board suggests a non-live alternative, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over others. No exclusions or contextual cues are provided.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation with 'Get', but does not disclose error behavior, authentication needs, rate limits, or response structure. It adds no behavioral detail beyond what the name already suggests.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the action verb. It is appropriately sized and gets to the point immediately.

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 read tool, the description gives enough to invoke it correctly (pass a username). However, it lacks any indication of the response format or potential pitfalls, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only implicitly links 'username' to 'a player', but adds no constraints, format, or examples. This is a marginal clarification, not meaningful compensation.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get the clubs a player belongs to on Chess.com.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_club_profile and get_club_members by focusing on a player's club memberships, not club-centric data.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention when to prefer this over get_club_members or get_player_profile, nor does it state any exclusions or conditions.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool retrieves ongoing games, but does not explain what 'ongoing' includes, whether the result is a list, or whether any special conditions or limitations apply.

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 redundant wording. It efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary detail.

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?

While the tool is simple, the description omits critical selection context and does not disambiguate it from overlapping sibling tools. With no annotations and no output schema, the description alone is insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke it in the right situation.

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 0% and the description adds no operational meaning to the 'username' parameter beyond implying it identifies the player. The agent gets no guidance on username format, case sensitivity, or accepted values.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get a player's ongoing games on Chess.com'. It clearly indicates what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from similarly named siblings like get_player_live_games or get_player_games_to_move.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of alternatives. Several sibling tools cover overlapping concepts such as live games, games to move, and game archives, so the agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only reveals that the operation lists archives; it does not describe whether the result is a list of month strings, URLs, or objects, nor does it mention ordering, authentication, rate limits, or any other behavior. This is a minimal but not transparent definition.

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 with no filler. The action and object are front-loaded, making it immediately scannable and easy for an agent to parse.

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 one-parameter read-only list operation, the description covers the core purpose and is actionable. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits important context such as the shape of the returned archive list and how the entries are formatted, leaving an agent to infer or discover those details at runtime.

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 0%, so the description was expected to compensate, but it does not explicitly explain the 'username' parameter. However, the single parameter is self-explanatory from its name and the description's 'for a player' context, making the lack of additional semantics only a minor gap.

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 verb ('Get a list') and the resource ('available monthly game archives for a player on Chess.com'), making the tool's basic purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_player_games_by_month, but the phrase 'monthly game archives' adequately conveys that this is about archive listings rather than game content.

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 tool versus siblings such as get_player_games_by_month or download_player_games_pgn. The word 'available' weakly implies it is useful for discovering which months can be fetched, but no explicit conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are provided.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic function and provides no information about return format, pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or potential errors. For a tool that likely returns game data, this is a significant gap.

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 sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the main action. It avoids unnecessary words. However, it is under-specified for the tool's complexity, but conciseness itself is good.

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?

With 3 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. An agent would need to know the meaning and constraints of year/month (e.g., valid ranges), the shape of the returned data, and any differences from similar tools. The description provides none of this, making it inadequate for reliable invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining the parameters. It only says 'specific month' which vaguely hints at year/month but does not clarify format (e.g., month range 1-12, year formatting, username case sensitivity). None of the three parameters are individually explained, leaving the agent to guess.

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 states a specific verb (get), a resource (player's games), and a scope (specific month), making the tool's purpose clear. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_player_current_games or get_player_game_archives by its month-based filter, though it doesn't explicitly name those alternatives. The core action is 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the many game-related siblings (e.g., get_player_game_archives, get_player_current_games, download_player_games_pgn). An agent must infer usage from the name and description, which is insufficient given the large sibling set. No exclusions or alternative routes are mentioned.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get' implies a read-only operation and 'where they must act' adds some state context, but the description does not disclose whether authentication is needed, what 'daily games' means precisely, or any rate-limit or scope caveats.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It communicates the core purpose efficiently, though the ambiguity of 'daily games' keeps it from being a perfect concise definition.

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 tool with one parameter, the description is minimal but missing operational context: it does not define 'daily games', describe the expected return shape, or clarify when to select this over competing sibling tools. The lack of annotations and output schema makes these omissions more significant.

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 has 0% description coverage for the single username parameter, and the description does not add details about the parameter beyond the schema's property name. Username is self-explanatory, so this is not a severe gap, but the description still fails to compensate for the absent schema documentation.

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 states a concrete verb ('Get') and a resource ('a player's daily games') with a specific filter ('where they must act'), so it is not a tautology. It is clear enough that an agent can tell this is about games awaiting the player's move, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_player_current_games or get_player_live_games.

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 about when to use this tool instead of siblings like get_player_current_games, get_player_live_games, or get_player_games_by_month. The intended use is only implied by the phrase 'where they must act'; no alternatives or exclusion conditions are mentioned.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'live games' without specifying whether it returns in-progress games only, whether authentication is required, the return format, or any constraints. This is minimal and leaves significant behavioral details unknown.

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 sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the verb and object, making it easy to scan. However, brevity here sacrifices necessary detail.

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 three required parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many closely related siblings, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain the return structure, the meaning of 'live games', or how the parameters affect the query, leaving an agent under-equipped to call the tool correctly.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies that base_time and increment define the 'time control', but it does not explain their units, ranges, or how they interact. An agent cannot infer the exact expected values from this description alone.

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 uses a clear verb 'Get' with a specific resource 'a player's live games' and a qualifier 'for a time control', which conveys the core action. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'get_player_current_games', which likely refers to the same or a very similar concept, leaving ambiguity about what 'live' means.

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 tool versus alternatives like get_player_current_games, get_player_games_to_move, or get_player_games_by_month. No context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions is provided.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states what is retrieved; it does not mention whether matches are live or finished, how results are structured, whether pagination applies, or any required permissions or rate-limit considerations.

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, focused sentence with no filler. The verb and object are front-loaded, and the length is appropriate for a tool with one simple parameter.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description needs to clarify return scope and edge cases. The phrase 'involving a player' is ambiguous about whether these are matches the player's team played, matches the player personally participated in, or both. Additional context about the data returned is missing.

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 0%, and the description does not explicitly explain the username parameter, its format, or its role beyond the word 'player'. The parameter property name itself, 'username', is self-explanatory, but the description adds minimal semantic value over the raw schema.

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 uses a concrete verb ('Get') and names a specific resource ('team matches involving a player'). It communicates the core purpose clearly, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from closely related siblings like get_team_match or get_club_matches.

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 implies usage: use this when you need team match data scoped to a player. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer how this differs from get_team_match, get_player_games, and get_club_matches.

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

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The word 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description does not disclose rate limits, authentication needs, error behavior, or what fields the profile contains.

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 sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the action and resource, and every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter read operation, the description is minimally viable. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves return-content details, error cases, and any special constraints on the username unspecified, which are meaningful gaps for an agent.

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 provides only 'username' with no description, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain the expected username format, case sensitivity, or how the parameter maps to the profile request beyond naming the player.

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 verb and resource: it gets a player's profile from Chess.com. 'Profile' distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_player_stats and get_player_current_games, though it does not explicitly call them out.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus get_player_stats, get_player_clubs, or other player-related tools. It simply states the action without context, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden for disclosing behavior. 'Get' implies a read operation, but the description does not clarify output shape, authentication needs, rate limits, or what 'stats' includes. This leaves important behavioral context unstated.

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 short sentence with no redundant words, which is structurally clean. However, it is more under-specified than genuinely concise, omitting detail that an agent would need to confidently invoke 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?

With one parameter the tool is simple, but with no annotations, no output schema, and no sibling differentiation, the description is too thin. It leaves unclear what 'stats' means and how the result should be interpreted, so an agent is not fully equipped to call it correctly.

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 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the schema. The single 'username' parameter is left entirely to the agent's inference; the description says 'a player's stats' but does not explicitly connect the username to the player or explain expected format/value semantics.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get a player's stats from Chess.com.' This makes the core function clear. However, it does not differentiate this tool from the many sibling tools, particularly get_player_profile, which could overlap in an agent's understanding.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of siblings like get_player_profile, get_player_games_by_month, or is_player_online. The description only mentions the data source, not the conditions that would make this tool the right choice.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get' and gives no information about response format, pagination, ordering, data freshness, or any edge cases, leaving the tool's runtime behavior opaque.

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 clear sentence with no filler or repetition. It front-loads the action and resource immediately, making it easy to scan.

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?

Although the tool is simple with one required parameter, there is no output schema and the description does not explain what a successful response contains or how tournaments are represented. It also omits practical details like whether results are paginated or limited, so an agent has only the bare minimum to invoke the tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the parameter, and it partially does by tying the request to 'a player' whose username is supplied. However, it does not specify username format, case sensitivity, or any constraints beyond what the schema's property name already implies.

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 states a specific action and resource ('Get tournaments involving a player on Chess.com'), making its function clear. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like get_tournament or get_player_matches, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 choose this tool over related tools such as get_tournament, get_player_matches, or get_player_clubs. The usage context is only implicit in the name and one-line description, with no exclusions or alternative routing.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that the result is random and from Chess.com, but it does not explain whether this is a safe read, what the response shape is, or whether the endpoint can return empty or error results. This is minimal disclosure beyond the tool name.

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 declarative sentence with a front-loaded verb and no filler. For a zero-parameter tool, this is appropriately sized and every word earns its place.

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?

The description provides enough context to select and invoke a simple zero-parameter tool. However, with no output schema and no behavioral annotations, it omits any hint about the returned puzzle structure or possible edge cases, so it is adequate but not fully complete.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to document. The description correctly implies the tool takes no arguments, and the 0-parameter baseline of 4 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 names a specific verb (Get), a specific resource (random daily puzzle), and a source (Chess.com). It clearly differentiates from the sibling get_daily_puzzle by adding 'random', so an agent can tell the tools apart.

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 implies the tool should be used when a random daily puzzle is wanted, but it does not explicitly contrast this with get_daily_puzzle or state when not to use it. Selection among siblings is left to inference rather than explicit guidance.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action without mentioning any traits such as read-only nature, data freshness, pagination, error behavior, or authentication requirements. This is minimal and lacks transparency beyond the core function.

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, focused sentence with no extraneous words. It conveys the essential purpose efficiently and is front-loaded with the verb and resource. There is zero waste.

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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It states the purpose but does not describe the return format or any special cases. For a simple getter, this is adequate but leaves some ambiguity about the response structure.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. Per the baseline for 0 parameters, this scores 4. The description adds no parameter info, but none is required.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'current Chess.com streamer list'. It is specific and distinct from sibling tools that focus on players, games, clubs, and tournaments. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does without ambiguity.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or any prerequisites. However, the purpose is self-evident given the tool name and description, so usage is implied. No guidance on exclusions or specific scenarios is provided.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only says 'Get', which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose authentication needs, rate-limit implications, return behavior, or anything about the retrieved match data.

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 one-sentence description is genuinely concise and free of fluff. However, it is under-specified rather than elegantly compact, so it only earns a middle score.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description needs to provide more context than it does. It names the resource but leaves the agent without enough information about match_id origin, return shape, or how this differs from get_team_match_board and get_live_team_match.

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 0%, and the description completely ignores the required match_id parameter. It adds no meaning about what match_id represents, where to obtain it, or how it should be formatted.

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 states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('a daily team match on Chess.com'), and 'daily' helps distinguish it from the live-team-match sibling. It is not a 5 because it doesn't differentiate from board-level siblings or clarify that it returns match details rather than boards.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or explicit alternatives. The sibling names hint at a daily-vs-live distinction, but that distinction is not stated in the tool's own description.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Get' clearly implies a read-only operation with no side effects, but the description does not mention what kind of board data is returned, whether this is final/archived data, or any access considerations. This is adequate but not rich.

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. The key resource ('a board') appears immediately, and the qualifier ('daily team match') is concise and relevant.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter description coverage, the description leaves important context unspecified: what a board is, what board numbers are valid, and what the response contains. It is too minimal for an agent to call this with full confidence.

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 0%, and the description does not explain what match_id or board values represent beyond the words themselves. An agent cannot tell what a valid board identifier is or how it relates to the match, leaving a significant semantic gap.

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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('a board'), and the context ('daily team match'). This distinguishes it from the sibling get_live_team_match_board (daily vs live) and get_team_match (board vs whole match).

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 word 'daily' gives clear context for when this tool applies, implicitly distinguishing it from live team match boards. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Get a list,' which implies a read operation, but it does not explain whether results are paginated, ordered, complete, or limited to a particular set of titled players. It also does not mention rate limits, response shape, or any edge cases.

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 words. It is concise and readable, though it is at the edge of under-specification; the terse phrasing leaves out important usage and parameter context, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

The tool is simple: one required parameter, no nested objects, and no output schema. The description adequately conveys that the result is a list of titled players from Chess.com. However, with no output schema or annotations, the agent is left without details about the returned player fields, result limits, or any behavioral caveats, making this minimally viable rather than complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the parameter's meaning, but it does not. The single required 'title' parameter is only inferable from the phrase 'titled players'; the description never states that the tool filters by title or that the title value must be one of the enumerated chess title abbreviations.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get a list of titled players from Chess.com.' It is clear about the broad action and object, and 'titled players' is distinct enough to separate it from most player-related siblings. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives like get_leaderboards or get_player_profile, so it loses the top score.

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 tool versus sibling tools such as get_leaderboards, get_streamers, or get_player_profile. The description only states what it does, not when an agent should choose it, and it provides no exclusion criteria or alternative routing.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get information' implies a read-only lookup, but the description does not disclose output format, authentication, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits.

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 sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing dash well, so it is concise and easy to parse. The brevity is acceptable, though it does sacrifice useful detail.

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?

With no output schema streaming and no annotations, the tool is underspecified. An agent still cannot know what data will be returned, how to construct url_id, or how this relates to the round and group variants.

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 only parameter, url_id, has 0% schema description coverageebb, and the description does not explain what url_id is or what format it should take. The field name hints it may be a URL identifier, but the description needed to compensate for the bare schema and did not.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('information about a tournament on Chess.com'). It is clear on its own, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_tournament_round or get_tournament_round_group.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives is provided. An agent cannot tell from the description whether this tool is the right choice compared to get_tournament_round or get_tournament_round_group.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not mention that the operation is read-only, any required permissions, what the response format is, or any side effects. The term 'Get' implies a retrieval, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond that.

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 short sentence with no waste, but it is overly terse. It lacks structure and fails to convey necessary details. While conciseness is good, the description is under-specified, not elegantly concise.

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 tool with two required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the meaning of parameters, the expected response, or any special considerations. An agent cannot reliably determine how to call this tool correctly without additional context.

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 0%, meaning the schema properties have no descriptions. The description does not explain what url_id or round represent, nor their expected formats or constraints. The agent is left with bare parameter names and types, which is insufficient for correct usage.

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 states a clear action (get) on a specific resource (tournament round) on Chess.com. It is unambiguous about the tool's function, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_tournament_round_group, which could be a near-alternative. Still, the verb and resource are specific enough for basic identification.

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 tool versus alternatives like get_tournament_round_group or get_tournament. The description only states what it does, not when it is appropriate or what distinguishes it from siblings. No exclusions or context are provided.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get', which implies a read operation, but it does not mention response format, error behavior, authentication requirements, or what data fields are returned.

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 one short, readable sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded and efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than deliberate economy.

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 three-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the description is not complete enough. It fails to explain parameter semantics, the expected return value, or how this tool differs from get_tournament_round, leaving significant gaps for an agent to fill by guessing.

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 0%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. The agent must infer the roles of url_id, round, and group only from their names; there is no explanation of expected formats, how the parameters combine, or how they relate to a tournament round group.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get a tournament round group'. It communicates the domain (Chess.com) and the object being retrieved served. However, it does not define what a round group is or differentiate it from the closely named sibling get_tournament_round.

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 about when to use this tool instead of get_tournament or get_tournament_round. The intended use is only implied by the tool name and description, with no exclusions, prerequisites, or relationship to neighboring tournament-related tools.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only restates the operation and adds 'currently'; it does not disclose the return shape (e.g., boolean), latency, or behavior for invalid or nonexistent usernames.

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?

One sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and scope. This is appropriately concise for a tool with a single required parameter.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves the return type and the exact meaning of 'online' unstated. An agent can infer the call from the name, but the definition is not complete enough to fully understand 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the bare 'username: string' parameter. It refers to 'a player' but never names the username parameter or clarifies format, case sensitivity, or error behavior, adding no meaningful parameter semantics.

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 ('Check') and a precise resource ('if a player is currently online on Chess.com'), which is unique among the sibling tools. The purpose is immediately distinguishable from profile, stats, and games tools without needing the schema.

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 implies when to use the tool: any time a player's current presence status is needed. However, it does not explicitly state conditions, exclusions, or alternatives, so the guidance is only moderate.

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