get_enhanced_achievement_guide

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds value by specifying the return content (detailed information about each achievement, including when to use them, what they represent, and voice pack support), which goes beyond annotations to clarify output behavior and context. No contradiction 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 front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence, followed by specifics about return content. It uses two concise sentences with no wasted words, effectively communicating key information without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 complexity (read-only guide retrieval with one optional parameter), rich annotations cover safety and idempotency, and the description adds output details. However, there is no output schema, so the description partially compensates by describing return values, but could be more complete by specifying format or structure. It is adequate but has a minor gap in output specification.

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%, with the parameter 'category' fully documented in the schema including enum values and filtering behavior. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage without compensating with extra semantic information.

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 verb 'Get' and resource 'comprehensive guide explaining all available achievements', specifying content like categories, thresholds, and usage recommendations. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on detailed explanations rather than stats (get_enhanced_achievement_stats), lists (list_enhanced_achievements), or other functions like playing sounds or setting configurations.

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 usage for understanding achievements comprehensively, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_enhanced_achievement_stats for statistics or list_enhanced_achievements for basic listings. It provides context about the guide's content but lacks direct guidance on tool selection among siblings.

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