Get a game's full achievement list

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

The description adds rich behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations: the 150-cap with returned vs total, the empty-list/total:0 edge case for DLC/nonexistent games, and the API key dependency. It also clarifies what the tool does NOT report (why a list is empty), which is valuable transparency.

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 dense but every detail serves a purpose, covering scope, cap, edge cases, prerequisites, and alternatives in a compact block. Semicolons and clauses keep it readable, though it could be slightly more scannable. Still, it earns a high score for efficiency.

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 moderate complexity, the description covers all needed context: what is returned, how to handle edge cases, the required key, and sibling differentiators. With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to detail return structures; it fully addresses the contextual gap.

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% with both parameters described. The description reinforces the appid's source and language's override behavior but doesn't add substantial meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already documents parameters well.

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?

Clearly states the tool lists a game's achievements with specific fields (names, descriptions, hidden flag, rarity) and order. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_global_achievements and get_player_achievements, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'For just the rarity by internal id without a key, use get_global_achievements; for a few named highlights, see get_game's achievements_highlighted; for a specific player's own unlock progress, use get_player_achievements.' Also notes the STEAM_API_KEY requirement and directs users to get appid from search_games.

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