Resolve Vanity URL

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It correctly describes the conversion operation but does not mention potential behaviors such as error handling for invalid vanity URLs, rate limits, or response format. For a simple resolver, this is minimally adequate.

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 extremely concise: one sentence stating the purpose followed by an illustrative example. Every word serves a purpose, and the structure is front-loaded with the core action. No unnecessary information.

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 (single required parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers its purpose and provides an example. It does not address error scenarios or edge cases, but for a straightforward conversion tool, the information is largely sufficient.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'vanity_url', providing a clear explanation of what the value should be. The tool description does not add extra semantic detail beyond the example, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: converting a Steam custom URL to a 64-bit Steam ID. The verb 'Convert' and the specific resources (vanity URL to Steam ID) make it distinct from sibling tools, which focus on retrieving game or user data.

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 concrete example ('gabelogannewell' => '76561197960287930'), which clarifies how to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. Given the unique conversion purpose, it is implicitly clear, but explicit guidance would improve the score.

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