steam_resolve_vanity_url

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructiveHint, covering safety traits. The description adds a minor detail that full profile URLs are accepted as input, but it does not disclose error handling, rate limits, or behavior for invalid inputs. With annotations dominating the safety profile, this is acceptable but not rich.

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, front-loaded with the action and object, and contains no extraneous words. Every word contributes to the core purpose.

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 tool's simplicity, rich annotations, and an existing output schema, the description sufficiently covers the core operation. It could mention the ability to omit the parameter to use STEAM_USER, but that is documented in the schema. Overall, the context is adequate, with only minor gaps.

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 tool description mentions 'vanity/custom-URL name (or profile URL)' which hints at the 'steamid' parameter's accepted formats, but it does not explain the 'response_format' parameter or the default STEAM_USER behavior. Since schema_description_coverage is 0%, the description should compensate more; however, the schema itself provides detailed parameter descriptions, so the description adds minimal value.

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 ('Resolve') and resource ('Steam vanity/custom-URL name or profile URL to a SteamID64'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that operate on already-resolved IDs. It unambiguously states the tool's transformation.

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 usage: when you need to convert a vanity URL or custom name to a SteamID64. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer appropriate contexts.

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