steam_compare_players

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds that the tool computes shared games and per-game playtime comparison, which is useful context. It does not disclose behavior such as how steamid_a defaults to the configured STEAM_USER, response format handling, or any rate-limit/error behavior, but with annotations present the description provides acceptable additional context.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler: it states the resource, the action, and the key output. Every word contributes meaning, and it is appropriately sized for the tool.

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 readOnly annotation and a schema that documents all parameters, the description is nearly complete for correct invocation. It conveys the output shape ('shared games and who has played each more'), which is essential since there is no output schema. Minor gaps like the default steamid_a behavior and response_format are covered by the schema, so the description itself is sufficient for an agent selecting the tool.

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?

The free-text description does not mention any parameters (limit, steamid_a, steamid_b, response_format), so it adds no parameter-level meaning. However, the input schema itself provides thorough descriptions for all four properties, including defaults and accepted formats. Despite the context signal indicating 0% coverage, the schema is self-documenting, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Compare two users' libraries" and further specifies the output as "shared games and who has played each more." This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like steam_compare_games, which presumably compares game details rather than player libraries.

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 the use case: use this when you need to compare the libraries of two Steam users and see shared games/playtime. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over alternatives such as steam_compare_games, steam_find_friends_who_own, or steam_plan_coop_night, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites.

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