steam_resolve_vanity_url

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

readOnlyHint is true, so the read-only nature is already disclosed by annotations; the description does not contradict it. The description adds no further behavioral details such as error behavior for invalid names, rate limits, or what happens when the input is omitted or already an ID, so it only meets the baseline.

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 with no filler; the action, accepted input, and output are all front-loaded. Nothing in the description is wasted.

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 one-purpose read-only resolver, the description covers what the tool does, what inputs it accepts, and what it returns. Minor gaps remain around the optional steamid behavior and response_format, but the schema documents those, and the core invocation context is clear.

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 clarifies the primary input semantics (vanity/custom name or profile URL) and the output type, partially compensating for the low reported schema coverage. It does not mention the response_format option or the optional own-name fallback, though those are documented in the nested schema; the tool description adds some, but not complete, 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 names a specific action ('Resolve') and resource ('Steam vanity/custom-URL name or profile URL'), and states the concrete result (a SteamID64). This makes it immediately distinguishable from sibling tools that fetch player or game data.

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 transformation described implies the use case: when you have a vanity/custom URL or profile URL and need the underlying SteamID64, likely as a precursor to player-ID-based calls. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools, exclusions, or when not to use it, leaving the guidance implicit rather than explicit.

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