get_club_profile

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.