steam_get_player_achievements

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds scope ('per game') but no extra behavioral details like default steamid behavior or output format. It does not contradict 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?

One sentence, 11 words, directly states the action. No filler or redundancy.

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 read-only lookup with strong annotations and an output schema, the description states the core function sufficiently. However, it omits helpful context like the optional steamid fallback (described in schema) and doesn't indicate how this relates to sibling tools, but the annotations and output schema cover most of the operational context.

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 description mentions no parameter names or semantics. Schema description coverage is 0%, and though the schema provides useful descriptions for appid, steamid, language, and response_format, the description fails to compensate for the low coverage as required by the rubric.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get'), identifies the resource ('a user's achievement progress'), and scopes it to 'a specific game', which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like steam_get_global_achievement_percentages or steam_get_user_game_stats.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that steamid can be omitted to fall back to the configured user, nor does it contrast with related achievement/stats tools. The description offers no exclusions or context.

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