Resolver vanity URL de Steam

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the core transformation behavior and an example, but it does not disclose behavior for invalid vanity URLs, potential API errors, or whether url_type changes resolution semantics.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and result, with the example embedded in parentheses. Every element earns its place and there is no redundant restating of the tool name or schema.

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 two-parameter, read-only resolver with a fully described schema, the description adequately explains what the tool does and what it returns. Minor gaps remain around failure behavior and how url_type affects resolution, but these are not critical for the basic calling decision.

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%: both vanityurl and url_type already have descriptions in the schema. The description adds a useful concrete example for vanityurl but no additional meaning for url_type, so it sits at the baseline for schema-covered parameters.

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 the specific verb 'Convierte', names the resource (URL personalizada / vanity URL), and states the output (SteamID64), backed by a concrete example. It is clearly distinct from the sibling getters, none of which resolve vanity URLs to IDs.

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 intended usage is clear: use this tool when you have a custom Steam vanity URL and need the corresponding SteamID64. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no sibling tool performs this conversion, so the context is sufficient.

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