Get user's recent achievements

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions the time window and default value, but does not specify pagination, sorting, maximum results, or whether the operation is read-only. Disclosure is adequate for a simple query but lacks depth.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose. No fluff or redundant wording. Efficient and clear.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not explain the return format (list, count, structure). For a tool with two parameters and a simple purpose, this is adequate but incomplete. Safety and authentication context are missing due to lack of annotations.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds context about the default 60 minutes for 'recentMinutes', which the schema does not specify, but 'username' is not elaborated beyond schema. Minor value added.

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 verb 'get' and the resource 'recent achievements', with specific time window (N minutes). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'ra_user_achievements_between' and 'ra_user_summary' by focusing on the 'just played' use case.

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 a concrete use case ('what did they just play?') but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast with alternatives like 'ra_user_achievements_between' for custom date ranges. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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