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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds significant value beyond these: it lists the exact output fields, states they are returned 'exactly as Steam reports them' (no transformation), and clarifies that the tool never returns guessed data, only errors for unresolvable IDs or upstream failures. No contradictions with annotations.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose and field list, followed by usage context and error handling. Every sentence adds unique value; no redundancy or filler.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers return values by listing all fields, provides a clear use case, and explains error behavior. No major gaps remain for an agent to use this tool effectively.

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 100% (the 'id' parameter is thoroughly documented with all accepted formats). The tool description does not add any additional meaning about the input parameter beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the full burden.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool returns 'Steam ban status of a player' and lists the specific fields (VACBanned, NumberOfVACBans, etc.). It distinguishes itself from siblings by positioning it as 'First thing to check when reviewing a cheating report,' which implies a primary, focused role among the sibling tools (e.g., steam_profile, steam_friends).

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 a strong use case: 'First thing to check when reviewing a cheating report.' It also clarifies error behavior ('Unresolvable ids or an unavailable upstream return an error result, never guessed data'). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or suggest sibling alternatives, leaving the agent to infer from context.

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