get_country_clubs

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.