steam_getAchievementStats

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool is read-only and requires no API key, but does not disclose behavior on invalid appid, error handling, rate limits, or the response format. This is insufficient for a tool with no 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 very concise: two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose and adds a key detail (no API key) efficiently.

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 (single integer parameter, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose and input. It could optionally mention the response structure or error cases, but is largely complete for its 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% as the only parameter (appid) has a description. The description's text 'Steam application ID to get achievement stats for' adds no new meaning beyond the schema's 'Steam application ID to get achievement stats for'. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves global achievement unlock percentages for a Steam app, distinguishing it from sibling tools like steam_getPlayerAchievements which target individual players. The phrase 'Shows how many players have unlocked each achievement' reinforces the aggregate nature.

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 mentions 'No API key required,' which implies ease of use, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like steam_getPlayerAchievements for per-player data. Context is implied but not directly compared.

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