Get Untappd user badges

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, and the description reinforces the read-only status without contradiction. It adds genuine value beyond the annotations by disclosing result ordering ('most recent first') and the self-account omission behavior, which are behavioral facts not captured in the structured fields.

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?

Three short, purposeful clauses with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by the single non-obvious usage nuance (self-account omission) and the safety profile. Every word earns its place.

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?

For a simple paginated read tool with all parameters documented in the schema and three strong annotations, the description covers purpose, ordering, and account handling. No output schema exists, so return-value explanation isn't required. The only minor gap is not mentioning pagination behavior, but limit/offset are already fully specified in the schema.

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% with informative descriptions for all three parameters (limit range/default, offset default, username falling back to the configured UNTAPPD_USERNAME). The description largely restates the username behavior already present in the schema, so it adds minimal meaning beyond the structured data — the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Uses the specific verb 'Get' with a concrete resource ('badges a user has earned') plus the ordering qualifier 'most recent first'. Among the large sibling family (user_info, user_checkins, user_wishlist, user_beers, user_friends, user_venues), 'badges' is a distinct resource, so an agent can unambiguously distinguish this tool without opening any schema.

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 clarifies the key usage nuance — 'Omit username for your own account' — which guides when to include the parameter. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or states when not to use this tool versus the other user_* siblings; the differentiation relies on the tool name itself being self-evident rather than on explicit routing guidance.

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