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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds valuable behavioral details: responses carry 'provenance.fresh' and 'sources/partial' flags that the agent must branch on, and the 'friends_limit' caps the friend list. The only minor gap is not explaining what 'sources/partial' indicates exactly, but the mention is sufficient for an agent to handle branching.

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 well-structured: it starts with the core promise, then introduces the 'include' presets, then the response structure, then detailed parameter guidance. It's efficient but could be slightly tighter by removing the redundant 'Overview:' line which restates the first sentence. The inline examples are helpful without being verbose.

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 output schema, the description does a good job explaining the return structure (blocks, provenance flags). It covers all four parameters clearly. The sibling tools are meaningful (steam_friends, steam_bans, etc.) and the description differentiates this aggregator. The only gap is not explaining the 'friends_detail' parameter's impact on rate/size, but the schema's enum hints are sufficient 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value beyond the schema: it explains the 'include' presets in practical terms (e.g., 'omit it for everything'), gives a concrete example for ban checks, and clarifies the interaction between 'include' and the friends list. The 'friends_limit' is described in context of the default. Only minor improvement would be explicitly stating that 'friends_detail' defaults to 'full', but the schema already says 'default full'.

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 provides a 'Steam player overview in one call' and lists exactly which blocks are included: Steam summary, ban status, SteamID conversions, FACEIT stats, and the first 100 friends. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like steam_bans, steam_faceit, and steam_friends by being the comprehensive aggregation endpoint.

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 explicit guidance on when to use each option of the 'include' parameter: omit for full, ['steam'] for cheapest, ['bans'] for ban check only, ['faceit','bans'] to drop friends. It also provides a use case ('competitive checks') and explains the trade-off between cost and completeness.

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