steam_get_player_badges

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is covered. The description adds no further behavioral disclosures such as the ability to omit steamid to fall back to the configured STEAM_USER, response formatting options, or rate-limit behavior. It is consistent with the annotation but contributes little beyond it.

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 sentence with no filler. The key information ('badges' and 'XP breakdown') is front-loaded, making it immediately scannable by an agent.

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 tool with no output schema, the description reasonably conveys what data is returned, and the input schema covers the parameter details. The main gap is the lack of explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of the closely related steam_get_steam_level or achievement tools, and no mention of the default-user behavior.

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 at the top level is 0% (the single 'params' property has no description in the schema), and the tool description does not compensate by explaining accepted steamid formats, the optional vanity-name/full-URL formats, the default to the configured user, or the response_format option. The nested schema fields do have descriptions, but the description text itself adds no parameter meaning.

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 ('Get'), a specific resource ('a user's badges'), and adds a distinctive detail ('the XP breakdown behind their Steam level') that differentiates it from the many player-related sibling tools such as steam_get_steam_level and steam_get_player_summary. Any agent can tell this tool is about badges plus the XP composition of the player's level.

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 use case is implied: if you need a user's badges or level XP breakdown, this is the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over closely related tools like steam_get_steam_level or steam_get_player_achievements, nor does it give any exclusions or alternative routing. The guidance is present only by inference from the noun phrase.

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