steam_getLeaderboardEntries

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the API type (partner.steam-api.com), authentication requirements (publisher key, IP allowlisting), and parameter dependencies (steamid needed for certain views). This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 concise at three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds essential detail without redundancy.

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 absence of an output schema, the description does not explain the return format (e.g., structure of entries with scores and rankings). While it covers input constraints well, the lack of output context leaves a gap for a tool with 6 parameters and a data retrieval function.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds extra value: it clarifies that leaderboardid is numeric (not name), explains datarequest values (0=global, 1=around-user, 2=friends), and states default ranges (0-100). This improves understanding beyond the schema's descriptions.

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 leaderboard scores and rankings for a Steam app, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like steam_getLeaderboardsForGame (lists leaderboards) and steam_uploadLeaderboardScore (posts scores) by focusing on retrieving entries with scores and rankings.

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?

It provides explicit context, such as requiring the numeric leaderboard ID from Steamworks, using the partner API with a publisher key and IP allowlisting, and offering three viewing modes (global, around-user, friends-only). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives.

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