Logros de un usuario en un juego

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds one useful behavioral detail: the default to 'tus' when no user is specified. It does not describe the response format, possible empty results, or authentication requirements, but for a simple read-only lookup this is acceptable.

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 a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the main outcome before the default-user nuance. There is no filler, redundant restatement, or unnecessary detail.

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?

This is a low-complexity tool with one required parametter, full schema coverage, and read-only annotations. The description's 'Devuelve los logros de un usuario ... para un juego' is sufficient for an agent to understand the basic invocation. It could mention the shape of the returned achievements, but the absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by how simple the operation is.

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 all three parameters with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is already strong. The description contributes additional meaning by clarifying that steamid is optional and that omitting it returns the caller's own achievements, which is not explicit in the schema. 'para un juego' also maps naturally to the required appid parameter.

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 uses a specific verb ('Devuelve') and a clear resource ('logros de un usuario ... para un juego'), and it adds the useful nuance that omitting the user returns the caller's own achievements. It does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling tool, though 'de un usuario' implies it is player-specific rather than global.

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 enough context to know when to call it: pass an appid and optionally a steamid, with a sensible default to the caller's own achievements. However, there are no explicit exclusions or alternative tool suggestions, so the usage guidance remains implied rather than stated.

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