get_player_achievements

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

The description discloses the return data structure and gives a concrete usage example, which is useful behavior information. With no annotations provided, it carries the full burden, but it does not mention access requirements (e.g., public profile), error cases, or rate limits. It is a moderate disclosure but not exhaustive.

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 three sentences long, front-loading the purpose, then providing return data and a usage example without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 has a simple query purpose, all parameters are well-defined in the schema (100% coverage), and an output schema is stated to exist. The description adds return data details and an example, making it fairly complete for an agent. It falls short of 5 due to missing guidance on error conditions or profile privacy requirements, but is otherwise adequate.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions and examples (e.g., app_id 730 for CS2, language 'english'). The description adds a usage example, but it largely duplicates what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 applies due to high schema coverage, with minimal added value.

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 achievement progress for a specific game' (특정 게임의 업적 진행상황을 조회합니다), with a specific verb and resource. It also lists return fields (name, achieved, unlocktime, description), distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_global_achievement_percentages or get_game_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 provides a usage example showing steam_id, app_id, and language, and implies per-user/per-game usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., global achievement percentages, game schema), and lacks any exclusion criteria or alternative tool guidance.

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