Get user awards

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 mentions 'with dates' but omits critical traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or response structure. The description fails to disclose whether the operation is safe or mutating.

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 redundant information. It is front-loaded with the title and immediately conveys the core functionality. Every word is necessary.

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?

The tool is simple with one required parameter and no output schema. The description covers the basic functionality but lacks details on output format, error cases, or usage context. While minimally adequate, there is room to add value.

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% for the single parameter 'username', which is described as 'RetroAchievements username'. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 explicitly states the tool retrieves user awards (mastery, beaten, event awards) with dates, using a specific verb ('gets') and resource ('user awards'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'ra_user_achievements_between' by focusing on awards rather than achievements.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'ra_user_summary' or 'ra_user_achievements_between'. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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