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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic return type, which is already covered by the output schema. No contradiction exists.

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 that contains no filler. Every word contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose and required input.

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 getter with one parameter, the description, combined with annotations and output schema, provides enough context to use the tool correctly. A minor gap is the lack of mention of error handling for invalid SteamID64s, but this is not critical for basic usage.

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 sole parameter 'steamid'. The description adds 'SteamID64', specifying the expected ID format, which is a meaningful clarification over the bare schema. However, it does not elaborate on formatting or validation rules.

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 ('Return') with a clear resource ('Steam Community level') and the input format ('SteamID64'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like player_summaries or player_achievements by focusing solely on the level.

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 retrieving a player's level but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., player_summary) or mention any prerequisites. Context is implied rather than explicit.

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