Get a player's achievements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true (consistent with read operation) and openWorldHint=true (data may change). The description adds important behavioral context: requires STEAM_API_KEY and a public profile. 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?

Two sentences, no fluff. Key information (verb, resource, output details, requirements) is front-loaded. Every word adds value.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description hints at the return structure (unlocked count, % complete, per-achievement unlock dates). It also covers requirements (API key, public profile). A small gap: no mention of error cases or pagination, but acceptable for a read tool with openWorldHint.

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 baseline is 3. The description mentions the two key parameters (SteamID64, appid) but adds no new information beyond the schema's own descriptions. The optional language parameter is omitted from the description, but the schema handles it 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?

The description clearly states the action (Get), the resource (player's achievement progress for one game), and the specific output (unlocked count, % complete, per-achievement unlock dates). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_game_achievements (global) and get_player_summary (different data).

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 when to use this tool: when you need per-player, per-game achievement progress. It mentions required parameters (appid, steamid with fallback) and prerequisites (STEAM_API_KEY, public profile). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use, which would strengthen the score.

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