steam_get_achievements

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key prerequisite (player's game stats must be public) and describes the returned data (progress percentage and table). It stops short of discussing error handling or rate limits, but for a read-only tool the most important behavior is covered.

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 sentences, all substantive and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second covers parameters, and the third describes output and a prerequisite. No filler or redundancy.

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 is simple, no output schema exists, and the description adequately summarizes return values (progress percentage and table). It does not explicitly cover the language parameter (but schema does) and could mention what happens if stats are private, but overall is complete for typical use.

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%, giving baseline 3. The description adds real semantic value beyond the schema: it explains that SteamID can be SteamID64 or vanity URL, gives a concrete AppID example (730 for CS2), and clarifies the status filter options and their meaning. This exceeds mere parameter repetition.

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 returns a player's achievement progress for a specific game, using the specific verb 'Returns' and naming both the player and game context. This differentiates it from sibling tools like global achievement stats or 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 gives useful parameter usage guidance (status values, SteamID format, example AppID) and notes the public-stats requirement, but does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over siblings like steam_get_global_achievement_stats. Usage context is implied rather than stated as alternatives/exclusions.

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