steam_get_player_badges

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context. It adds the detail that the tool returns an XP breakdown, which is useful, but it does not disclose anything about rate limits, auth specifics, or the shape of the XP breakdown. 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?

The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the primary action and resource. Every word adds value, with no repetition, filler, or unnecessary detail.

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?

The tool is a simple read-only operation with an output schema and strong annotations. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand the basic purpose, but it could be slightly more complete by mentioning that the user can be specified via steamid or that the response includes detailed XP components. Minor gap given the simplicity.

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 0% according to context signals, meaning the tool description provides no parameter information. The description does not mention steamid or response_format, nor does it compensate for the low coverage. While the schema itself contains descriptions for each parameter, the tool description adds no value beyond the schema.

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') and clearly identifies the resource ('a user's badges') plus a distinguishing detail ('XP breakdown behind their Steam level'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like steam_get_steam_level, which focuses on the level itself.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies use when badges or XP breakdown are needed, but it does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or comparison with related tools such as steam_get_steam_level.

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