Get user completion progress

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It fails to state that the tool is read-only, whether authentication is needed, or how pagination works (count and offset parameters are not explained). The only disclosed behavior is the return fields, but missing key traits like data freshness or rate limits.

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, focused sentence that communicates the core functionality efficiently. It is front-loaded with the key verb and resource. However, it could be slightly restructured to include parameter hints without becoming verbose, so it is not perfect but strong.

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 lack of output schema, the description mentions return fields (completion %, hardcore status, award level) which is helpful. However, it does not mention that the result is a list, or that count and offset control pagination. It also omits the required username parameter context. Overall, it provides basic completeness but misses important details.

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 only 33% (only username has a description). The tool description does not explain the count and offset parameters (e.g., for pagination). It adds no meaning beyond the minimal schema, and for the undocumented parameters, agents get no help understanding their purpose or constraints.

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 it returns 'All games the user has earned at least one achievement in, with completion %, hardcore status, and award level.' This clearly identifies the tool's purpose: retrieving a user's completion progress per game. It is distinct from sibling tools like 'ra_user_achievements_between' (filtered by dates) and 'ra_user_recent_achievements' (recent achievements only), making purpose differentiation strong.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not mention that it only includes games with at least one achievement, nor does it exclude cases where the user has zero achievements. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is present, leaving agents 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.