resolve_vanity_url

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return data includes 'steamid' and 'success', which adds transparency. However, it does not disclose failure behavior (e.g., what happens if the vanity URL is invalid) or explicitly state that the operation is read-only and side-effect-free.

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 well-structured and concise, covering the function, return data, an important usage note, and an example in a compact format. Every sentence adds value, and key information is front-loaded.

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 tool's simplicity, an output schema exists, and the description explains the purpose, usage context, return data, and provides examples. It is missing explicit error-handling details, but that is not critical for this conversion tool. Overall, it is complete for its complexity.

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 schema already provides a clear description of the parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing usage examples ('robinwalker', 'customusername') and clarifying the parameter's role in the conversion process, going beyond the schema.

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 function: converting Steam custom URLs (vanity URLs) to 64-bit Steam IDs. It uses a specific verb and resource, and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are all data retrieval tools, by being a conversion utility.

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 clear usage guidance: 'Most other tools require 64-bit Steam ID. If user provides only custom URL, must first convert with this tool.' This explicitly tells when to use it and implies when not to use it (when a 64-bit ID is already available).

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