steam_charts_concurrent

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

Discloses credential-free access and data enrichment toggle, which is helpful given no annotations. However, missing potential limitations like rate limits, pagination, or data refresh frequency. Transparency is good but not comprehensive.

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?

Two concise sentences covering purpose, output details, and key parameter. No extraneous information, well front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool with 3 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is largely complete. Could mention if results are paginated or have a fixed size, but the core behavior is well covered.

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%, and the description adds value by explaining the enrichment behavior (default enriching, enrich=false for raw) and the role of l and cc parameters for name localization. Goes beyond schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states it retrieves Steam's live games-by-concurrent-players leaderboard, listing returned fields (rank, appid, current concurrent, peak). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like steam_charts_most_played and steam_charts_top_releases.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternatives guidance. The description implies use for live concurrent player data, but does not contrast with sibling chart tools. Suitable for an informed agent but lacks direct usage direction.

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